Literature DB >> 29686547

Comparison of a standardized negative pressure wound therapy protocol after midline celiotomy to primary skin closure and traditional open wound vacuum-assisted closure management.

Justin L Regner1, Matthew J Forestiere1, Yolanda Munoz-Maldonado1, Richard Frazee1, Travis S Isbell1, Claire L Isbell1, Randall W Smith1, Stephen W Abernathy1.   

Abstract

A negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) protocol using Hydrofera Blue® bacteriostatic foam wicks and silver-impregnated foam overlay to close midline skin incisions after emergency celiotomy was compared to primary skin closure only and traditional open wound vacuum-assisted closure management as part of a quality improvement initiative. This single-institution retrospective cohort study assessed all consecutive emergency celiotomies from July 2013 to June 2014 excluding clean wounds. Included variables were demographics, wound classification, NPWT days, and surgical site occurrences (SSOs). Primary outcome was days of NPWT. Secondary outcomes included SSOs (surgical site infections, fascial dehiscence, return to operating room). Analysis used exact chi-square between categorical variables, Kruskal-Wallis for analysis of variance for ordinal and categorical variables, and Wilcoxon rank sum for total days of NPWT. One hundred fifty-eight patients underwent emergency celiotomy with primary skin closure (n = 51), open NPWT (n = 63), or the NPWT protocol (n = 44). There was no difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status score, body mass index, wound classification, or SSO between the three groups. Total NPWT days were reduced in protocol versus open NPWT (median 3 vs 20.5 days, range 3-51 vs 3-405 days, P = 0.001). Primary skin closure and NPWT protocol had fewer patients discharged with NPWT than open NWPT (0% and 14% vs 63.5%, P < 0.0001, odds ratio = 10.7, 95% confidence interval 3.7-35.1). Primary skin closure and NPWT protocol decrease NPWT usage days and maintain low SSOs in emergency midline celiotomy incisions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Midline celiotomy; negative pressure wound therapy; primary skin closure; surgical site infections; vacuum-assisted therapy; wound care

Year:  2018        PMID: 29686547      PMCID: PMC5903531          DOI: 10.1080/08998280.2017.1400312

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)        ISSN: 0899-8280


  14 in total

1.  "Never events": not every hospital-acquired infection is preventable.

Authors:  Jack Brown; Fred Doloresco Iii; Joseph M Mylotte
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 9.079

Review 2.  The mechanisms of action of vacuum assisted closure: more to learn.

Authors:  Dennis P Orgill; Ernest K Manders; Bauer E Sumpio; Raphael C Lee; Christopher E Attinger; Geoffrey C Gurtner; H Paul Ehrlich
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2009-04-19       Impact factor: 3.982

3.  Negative pressure wound therapy to prevent seromas and treat surgical incisions after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Milena Pachowsky; Johannes Gusinde; Andrea Klein; Siegfried Lehrl; Stefan Schulz-Drost; Philipp Schlechtweg; Johannes Pauser; Kolja Gelse; Matthias H Brem
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Negative pressure wound therapy to treat hematomas and surgical incisions following high-energy trauma.

Authors:  James P Stannard; James T Robinson; E Ratcliffe Anderson; Gerald McGwin; David A Volgas; Jorge E Alonso
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2006-06

5.  [Vacuum sealing as treatment of soft tissue damage in open fractures].

Authors:  W Fleischmann; W Strecker; M Bombelli; L Kinzl
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 1.000

6.  The mechanism of action of the vacuum-assisted closure device.

Authors:  Sandra Saja Scherer; Giorgio Pietramaggiori; Jasmine C Mathews; Michael J Prsa; Sui Huang; Dennis P Orgill
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Skin closure after trauma laparotomy in high-risk patients: opening opportunities for improvement.

Authors:  Mark J Seamon; Brian P Smith; Lisa Capano-Wehrle; Abdulla Fakhro; Nicole Fox; Michael Goldberg; Niels M Martin; Abhijit S Pathak; Steven E Ross
Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.313

8.  Treatment of subcutaneous abdominal wound healing impairment after surgery without fascial dehiscence by vacuum assisted closure™ (SAWHI-V.A.C.®-study) versus standard conventional wound therapy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Dörthe Seidel; Rolf Lefering; Edmund A M Neugebauer
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Does the application of incisional negative pressure therapy to high-risk wounds prevent surgical site complications? A systematic review.

Authors:  Michael J Ingargiola; Lily N Daniali; Edward S Lee
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2013-09-20

Review 10.  A systematic review of risk factors associated with surgical site infections among surgical patients.

Authors:  Ellen Korol; Karissa Johnston; Nathalie Waser; Frangiscos Sifakis; Hasan S Jafri; Mathew Lo; Moe H Kyaw
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  A Comparison of the Biomechanical Performance of 3 Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Foams.

Authors:  Daniel J Gibson
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2022 Jan-Feb 01       Impact factor: 1.970

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.