Zhi Chen1, Jun Sun2, Zhipeng Yao1, Chenyang Song1, Wenge Liu3. 1. Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian, China. 2. Department of Emergency, Zhaotong Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Zhaotong, 657000, Yunnan, China. 3. Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian, China. lwgspine@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recently negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is increasingly being prophylactically used to prevent wound complications in various types of surgeries, but its role in spinal fusion surgery was less well established. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic NPWT (PNPWT) usage in spinal fusion surgery. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, databases PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies. Studies comparing PNPWT with standard wound dressing (SWD) were included and analyzed. The primary outcome was the incidence of surgical site infection, and secondary outcomes were incidence of wound dehiscence, overall wound complication, readmission and reoperation. RESULTS: A total of five studies were included; there were 279 patients in PNPWT group and 715 patients in SWD group. Four studies investigated surgical site infection; the pooled analysis showed a significantly lower incidence of surgical site infection in PNPWT group (OR: 0.399; 95% CI: 0.198, 0.802). Two studies explored wound dehiscence, three studies reported overall wound complication, and there were no significant differences between the two groups ((OR: 0.448; 95% CI: 0.144, 1.389) and (OR: 0.562; 95% CI: 0.296, 1.065), respectively). Two studies evaluated readmission, three studies compared reoperation rate, and the pooled results demonstrated no significant difference between the two groups ((OR: 1.045; 95% CI: 0.536, 2.038) and (OR: 0.979; 95% CI: 0.442, 2.169), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggested PNPWT could effectively reduce postoperative surgical site infection, but it had no significant benefit on reducing the incidence of wound dehiscence, overall wound complication, readmission and reoperation.
PURPOSE: Recently negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is increasingly being prophylactically used to prevent wound complications in various types of surgeries, but its role in spinal fusion surgery was less well established. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic NPWT (PNPWT) usage in spinal fusion surgery. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, databases PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies. Studies comparing PNPWT with standard wound dressing (SWD) were included and analyzed. The primary outcome was the incidence of surgical site infection, and secondary outcomes were incidence of wound dehiscence, overall wound complication, readmission and reoperation. RESULTS: A total of five studies were included; there were 279 patients in PNPWT group and 715 patients in SWD group. Four studies investigated surgical site infection; the pooled analysis showed a significantly lower incidence of surgical site infection in PNPWT group (OR: 0.399; 95% CI: 0.198, 0.802). Two studies explored wound dehiscence, three studies reported overall wound complication, and there were no significant differences between the two groups ((OR: 0.448; 95% CI: 0.144, 1.389) and (OR: 0.562; 95% CI: 0.296, 1.065), respectively). Two studies evaluated readmission, three studies compared reoperation rate, and the pooled results demonstrated no significant difference between the two groups ((OR: 1.045; 95% CI: 0.536, 2.038) and (OR: 0.979; 95% CI: 0.442, 2.169), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggested PNPWT could effectively reduce postoperative surgical site infection, but it had no significant benefit on reducing the incidence of wound dehiscence, overall wound complication, readmission and reoperation.
Authors: Shaheel Mohammad Sahebally; Kevin McKevitt; Ian Stephens; Fidelma Fitzpatrick; Joseph Deasy; John Patrick Burke; Deborah McNamara Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Ryan M Naylor; Hannah E Gilder; Nikita Gupta; Thomas C Hydrick; Joshua R Labott; David J Mauler; Taylor P Trentadue; Brandon Ghislain; Benjamin D Elder; Jeremy L Fogelson Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Asad S Akhter; Benjamin G McGahan; Liesl Close; David Dornbos; Nathaniel Toop; Nicholas R Thomas; Elizabeth Christ; Nader S Dahdaleh; Andrew J Grossbach Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Gill Norman; En Lin Goh; Jo C Dumville; Chunhu Shi; Zhenmi Liu; Laura Chiverton; Monica Stankiewicz; Adam Reid Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-05-01
Authors: Kyle B Mueller; Matthew D'Antuono; Nirali Patel; Gnel Pivazyan; Edward F Aulisi; Karen K Evans; M Nathan Nair Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: N Hyldig; H Birke-Sorensen; M Kruse; C Vinter; J S Joergensen; J A Sorensen; O Mogensen; R F Lamont; C Bille Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 6.939