Economic Analysis of AbClo, a Novel Abdominal Fascia Closure Device, for Patients With an Open Abdomen Following Trauma or Acute Abdominal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Open Abdomen (OA) cases represent a significant surgical and resource challenge. AbClo is a novel non-invasive abdominal fascial closure device that engages lateral components of the abdominal wall muscles to support gradual approximation of the fascia and reduce the fascial gap. The study objective was to assess the economic implications of AbClo compared to negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) alone on OA management. METHODS: We conducted a cost-minimization analysis using a decision tree comparing the use of the AbClo device to NPWT alone among patients with midline laparotomy for trauma or acute abdominal surgery who were ineligible for primary fascial closure. The time horizon was limited to the length of the inpatient hospital stay, and costs were considered from the perspective of the US Medicare payer. Clinical effectiveness data for AbClo was obtained from a randomized clinical trial. Cost data was obtained from the published literature. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. The primary outcome was incremental cost. RESULTS: The mean cumulative costs per patient were $76 582 for those treated with NPWT alone and $70,582 for those in the group treated with the AbClo device. Compared to NPWT alone, AbClo was associated with lower incremental costs of -$6012 (95% CI -$19 449 to +$1996). The probability that AbClo was cost-savings compared to NPWT alone was 94%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of AbClo is an economically attractive strategy for management of OA in in patients with midline laparotomy for trauma or acute abdominal surgery who were ineligible for primary fascial closure.

In vitro evaluation of a hybrid negative pressure system for wound therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess whether negative pressure could be maintained accurately and repeatably with a wall-suction-based hybrid negative pressure wound therapy (h-NPWT) system by comparing it with a commercial negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) device. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro experimental study. METHODS: A commercial NPWT device (control) and three h-NPWT devices, with 0, 3, and 6 meters of additional tubing using the hospital-wall suction (groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively), were applied sequentially to a commercial NPWT dressing on a silicone skin substrate and set to run at a continuous pressure of -125 mmHg. The pressure within the wound space was monitored at 10 second intervals for 24 h. The process was repeated five times for each group. RESULTS: The commercial NPWT device produced an average pressure variance of 3.02 mmHg, and the h-NPWT produced average variances of 4.38, 4.24 and 4.20 mmHg for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. All groups produced an average pressure within 0.15 mmHg of -125 mmHg over the 24-hour period, and the h-NPWT systems produced the smallest range with all values remaining within a ±5% variation from -125 mmHg. CONCLUSION: The h-NPWT system achieved negative pressures that were comparable to those of a commercial control NPWT device. The addition of tubing between the skin substrate and the canister did not affect the pressure applied at the wound site. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The h-NPWT device tested in this study can be considered as an alternative for negative wound therapy when a commercial device cannot be used.

Endoluminal Vacuum Therapy Using a New "Fistula Sponge" in Treating Defects of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract-A Comparative, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background and Objectives: Anastomotic insufficiencies (AI) and perforations of the upper gastrointestinal tract (uGIT) result in high morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic stent placement and endoluminal vacuum therapy (EVT) have been established as surgical revision treatment options. The Eso-Sponge® is the only licensed EVT system with limitations in treating small defects (<10 mm). Therefore, a fistula sponge (FS) was developed for the treatment of such defects as a new therapeutic approach. The aim of this study was to evaluate both EVT options' indications, success rates, and complications in a retrospective, comparative approach. Materials and Methods: Between 01/2018 and 01/2021, the clinical data of patients undergoing FS-EVT or conventional EVT (cEVT; Eso-Sponge®, Braun Melsungen, Melsungen, Germany) due to AI/perforation of the uGIT were recorded. Indication, diameter of leakage, therapeutic success, and complications during the procedure were assessed. FSs were prepared using a nasogastric tube and a porous drainage film (Suprasorb® CNP, Lohmann & Rauscher, Rengsdorf, Germany) sutured to the distal tip. Results: A total of 72 patients were included (20 FS-EVT; 52 cEVT). FS-EVT was performed in 60% suffering from AI (cEVT = 68%) and 40% from perforation (cEVT = 32%; p > 0.05). FS-EVT's duration was significantly shorter than cEVT (7.6 ± 12.0 d vs. 15.1 ± 14.3 d; p = 0.014). The mean diameter of the defect was 9 mm in the FS-EVT group compared to 24 mm in cEVT (p < 0.001). Therapeutic success was achieved in 90% (FS-EVT) and 91% (cEVT; p > 0.05). Conclusions: EVT comprises an efficient treatment option for transmural defects of the uGIT. In daily clinical practice, fistulas < 10 mm with large abscess formations poses a special challenge since intraluminal cEVT usually is ineffective. In these cases, the concept of extraluminal FS placement is safe and effective.

Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy for Left-Sided Colorectal Anastomotic Leak Without Fecal Diversion.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic vacuum therapy for the treatment of rectal anastomotic leak has been shown to be effective and safe. The majority of patients are treated after fecal diversion to avoid further septic complications. OBJECTIVE: To report the effectiveness of endoscopic vacuum therapy for rectal anastomotic leak without diversion compared to secondary stoma creation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTINGS: University hospital, single-center. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing sigmoid or rectal resection without fecal diversion during primary surgery who were treated with endoscopic vacuum therapy for clinically relevant anastomotic leak. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment success (sepsis control, granulation and closure of the leak cavity, and no subsequent interventional or surgical procedure required); treatment duration; complications associated with endoscopic vacuum therapy; outpatient treatment; and restoration of intestinal continuity in diverted patients. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were included. In 20 patients (35%), endoscopic vacuum therapy was initiated without secondary diversion since the leak was extraperitoneal, and the sponge could be placed into the leak cavity with an adequate seal toward the lumen. In 18 patients (90%), this approach was successful. None of these patients required subsequent diversion in the further course of their disease. In two patients, secondary diversion was necessary due to treatment failure. Balloon dilatation for luminal stenosis was required in two patients. When comparing patient and treatment characteristics of patients with and without a stoma, including treatment success and duration, no significant differences were found. Restoration of intestinal continuity was achieved in 69% of diverted patients. LIMITATIONS: Unrandomized, retrospective study design; confounding factors of treatment assignment; low patient numbers and short follow-up of diverted patients; and low statistical power. CONCLUSION: In this single-institution study, endoscopic vacuum therapy for rectal anastomotic leak was successful in 90% of patients without diversion with regard to sepsis control, granulation of the leak cavity, avoidance of surgery, and long-term stoma-free survival. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B737.TERAPIA ENDOSCÓPICA POR ASPIRACIÓN AL VACÍO EN CASOS DE FUGA ANASTOMÓTICA RECTO-CÓLICA IZQUIERDA SIN OSTOMÍA DE PROTECCIÓNANTECEDENTES:Se ha demostrado que la terapia endoscópica por aspiración al vacío en casos de fuga anastomótica recto-cólica izquierda en el tratamiento de la fuga anastomótica rectal es eficaz y segura. La mayoría de los casos beneficiaron del tratamiento después de la confeción de un ostomía de protección para evitar más complicaciones sépticas.OBJETIVO:Demostrar la efectividad de la terapia endoscópica por aspiración al vacío en casos de fuga anastomótica recto-cólica izquierda sin ostomía de protección comparada con los casos que tuvieron la creación de una ostomía secundaria.DISEÑO:Análisis de cohortes de tipo retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Hospital universitario, unicéntrico.PACIENTES:Aquellos pacientes sometidos a una resección sigmoidea o rectal sin ostomía de protección durante una cirugía primaria, y que fueron tratados con terapia endoscópica por aspiración al vacío en caso de fuga anastomótica clínicamente relevante.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tratamiento exitoso (control de la sepsis, granulación y cierre de la cavidad de la fuga, sin requerir procedimiento quirúrgico o intervención ulteterior); duración del tratamiento; complicaciones asociadas con la terapia endoscópica por aspiración al vacío; tratamiento ambulatorio; restablecimiento de la continuidad intestinal en los pacientes portadores de ostomía.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 57 pacientes. En 20 pacientes (35%), se inició la terapia endoscópica por aspiración al vacío sin derivación secundaria, ya que la fuga era extraperitoneal y la esponja podía colocarse en la cavidad de la fuga con un sellado adecuado hacia el lumen. En 18 pacientes (90%), este enfoque fue exitoso. Ninguno de estos pacientes requirió una derivación posterior durante la evolución de la enfermedad. En dos pacientes, fue necesaria una derivación secundaria debido al fracaso del tratamiento. Se requirió dilatación con balón por estenosis luminal en dos pacientes. Al comparar las características de los pacientes y del tratamiento con y sin ostomía, incluido el éxito y la duración del tratamiento, no se encontraron diferencias significativas. El restablecimiento de la continuidad intestinal se logró en el 69% de los pacientes derivados.LIMITACIONES:Diseño de estudio retrospectivo no aleatorio; factores de confusión en la asignación del tratamiento; escaso número de pacientes y seguimiento a corto plazo de los pacientes ostomizados; bajo poder estadístico.CONCLUSIÓN:En este estudio de una sola institución, la terapia al vacío por vía endoscópica en casos de fuga anastomótica rectal fue exitosa en el 90% de los pacientes sin derivación con respecto al control de la sepsis, granulación de la cavidad de la fuga, como se evitó la cirugía y la sobrevida sin ostomía a largo plazo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B737. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

Closing Contaminated Fascial Defects With Synthetic Mesh and a Vacuum-Assisted Closure Device.

BACKGROUND: The use of synthetic mesh is considered too high risk, and therefore, not an option when closing a contaminated abdominal fascial defect. This study evaluated the clinical outcomes when using synthetic mesh combined with vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) dressing to close these facial defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2010 to 2016, a retrospective review was performed, including 34 patients in a single rural trauma center who underwent a damage control laparotomy in the presence of a contaminated or infected field. Definitive abdominal closure with a bridging polypropylene mesh along with the application of a VAC dressing was done in all cases. Data collection included baseline demographics, operative indication, postoperative complications, mortality and length of follow up. RESULTS: Median age of the patients was 67 y (IQR 40-87 y), with 22 (65%) being male at the time of operation. The median duration of clinical follow-up was 15.15 mo. The observed complications included three fistulas, two hernias, nine draining sinus tracts, and three mesh explanations with an overall complication rate of 41.1%. Although the absolute observed fistula rate was 8.8% (3 cases), the adjusted mesh-related fistulas formation rate after chart review was 0.0%. No mortalities were attributed directly to mesh-related complication. CONCLUSIONS: This study found no mesh-related fistulas when using a synthetic mesh along with a VAC dressing for abdominal closure in a contaminated field. These results may provide a platform for further study regarding the safety of this technique.

The Effectiveness of Vacuum-Assisted Closure Device in Managing Intramuscular Tuberculosis.

ABSTRACT: Tuberculosis (TB) is endemic to some geographic areas such as Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. It is called the great mimicker because of its diverse and variable presentation and affects almost every organ in the body with different symptomatology. Often, TB causes empyema necessitans, the rarest forms of which are intramuscular and cutaneous. Here, the authors report a case of empyema necessitans and intramuscular TB, which was managed successfully with negative-pressure wound therapy. The treatment provided a good outcome and patient satisfaction compared with traditional invasive surgical options.

Retrospective Clinical Evaluation of Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy for Infection Prevention Following Malignant Pelvic Bone Tumor Resection Reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for infection prevention following pelvic reconstruction after malignant bone tumor resection. METHODS: The study involved 82 patients who underwent pelvic reconstruction following en-bloc resection of malignant bone tumors between January 2003 and January 2016. Forty patients were treated with NPWT via implantation of vacuum-sealing drainage (VSD) materials into the pelvic cavity to prevent infection and wound problems (VSD group), and the remaining 42 patients underwent conventional treatment (control group). Study authors compared the inpatient length of stay, antibiotic use, drainage volume, time to wound closure, and infection rates between groups. Investigators also conducted cell cultures of the wound cavity washing fluid and hematoxylin-eosin staining for VSD materials to find recurrent tumor cells. RESULTS: In the VSD group, one patient (2.5%) had a superficial wound problem. In the control group, 18 patients (42.9%) had deep infection or wound problems. The VSD group had a significantly decreased infection rate, duration of antibiotic administration and inpatient stay, as well as increased wound healing compared with the control group (P < .05). Further, no tumor cells were observed in the VSD material or the wound cavity washing fluid. CONCLUSIONS: The application of NPWT with VSD material may be an effective and reliable method for preventing infection in patients who undergo pelvic reconstruction following malignant tumor resection.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Devices With Instillation/Irrigation: A Technologic Analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this technologic analysis was to critique technologic features of devices designed to deliver negative pressure wound therapy with instillation or irrigation (iNPWT). APPROACH: Published literature regarding negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) devices with the added feature of instillation or irrigation was reviewed to provide an overview of iNPWT. Varied features of devices currently available in the United States were described based on instructions published by individual manufacturers. Safety information regarding iNPWT was derived from the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) Database. CONCLUSIONS: The additional option of instillation or irrigation available with some NPWT devices may provide clinical benefits in carefully selected patients. Advantages may be related to facilitated removal of thick exudate and necrotic tissue. Devices with instillation options are indicated for inpatient settings, with ongoing monitoring of health care professionals. A simpler device with an intermittent irrigation option may be used in the home setting, with proper supervision. More research is needed to demonstrate the clinical effectiveness and cost of the therapy.

Single-Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Devices: A Technologic Analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this technologic analysis was to evaluate single-use negative pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) devices. APPROACH: Published literature regarding negative pressure wound therapy, particularly focusing on single-use or disposal devices, was reviewed. Varied features of devices currently available in the United States were drawn from use instructions published by individual manufacturers. Safety information regarding sNPWT was derived from the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) Database. CONCLUSIONS: Single-use or disposable negative pressure wound therapy devices provide a safe and effective alternative to traditional negative pressure wound therapy. These devices promote healing of select open wounds and reduce complication rates in closed surgical incisions, when used in accordance with manufacturer guidelines. They may be used in any setting, but they are designed for use in home care and may be applied as a primary treatment option or following a course of traditional negative pressure wound therapy.

Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure.

BACKGROUND: Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of NPWT for preventing SSI in wounds healing through primary closure, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPWT in wounds healing through primary closure. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and references of included studies, systematic reviews and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, publication date or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another type of NPWT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and quality assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. MAIN RESULTS: In this third update, we added 15 new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three new economic studies, resulting in a total of 44 RCTs (7447 included participants) and five economic studies. Studies evaluated NPWT in the context of a wide range of surgeries including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular and general procedures. Economic studies assessed NPWT in orthopaedic, obstetric and general surgical settings. All studies compared NPWT with standard dressings. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain. Primary outcomes Four studies (2107 participants) reported mortality. There is low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision) showing no clear difference in the risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT (2.3%) compared with standard dressings (2.7%) (risk ratio (RR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.47; I2 = 0%). Thirty-nine studies reported SSI; 31 of these (6204 participants), were included in meta-analysis. There is moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded once for risk of bias) that NPWT probably results in fewer SSI (8.8% of participants) than treatment with standard dressings (13.0% of participants) after surgery; RR 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80 ; I2 = 23%). Eighteen studies reported dehiscence; 14 of these (3809 participants) were included in meta-analysis. There is low-certainty evidence (downgraded once for risk of bias and once for imprecision) showing no clear difference in the risk of dehiscence after surgery for NPWT (5.3% of participants) compared with standard dressings (6.2% of participants) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.13; I2 = 0%). Secondary outcomes There is low-certainty evidence showing no clear difference between NPWT and standard treatment for the outcomes of reoperation and incidence of seroma. For reoperation, the RR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.41; I2 = 13%; 12 trials; 3523 participants); for seroma, the RR was 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; seven trials; 729 participants). The effect of NPWT on occurrence of haematoma or skin blisters is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence); for haematoma, the RR was 0.67 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.59; I2 = 0%; nine trials; 1202 participants) and for blisters the RR was 2.64 (95% CI 0.65 to 10.68; I2 = 69%; seven trials; 796 participants). The overall effect of NPWT on pain is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence from seven trials (2218 participants) which reported disparate measures of pain); but moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably little difference between the groups in pain after three or six months following surgery for lower limb fracture (one trial, 1549 participants). There is also moderate-certainty evidence for women undergoing caesarean sections (one trial, 876 participants) and people having surgery for lower limb fractures (one trial, 1549 participants) that there is probably little difference in quality of life scores at 30 days or 3 or 6 months, respectively. Cost-effectiveness Five economic studies, based wholly or partially on trials included in our review, assessed the cost-effectiveness of NPWT compared with standard care. They considered NPWT in four indications: caesarean sections in obese women; surgery for lower limb fracture; knee/hip arthroplasty and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. They calculated quality-adjusted life-years for treatment groups and produced estimates of the treatments' relative cost-effectiveness. The reporting quality was good but the grade of the evidence varied from moderate to very low. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT in surgery for lower limb fracture was not cost-effective at any threshold of willingness-to-pay and that NPWT is probably cost-effective in obese women undergoing caesarean section. Other studies found low or very low-certainty evidence indicating that NPWT may be cost-effective for the indications assessed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People experiencing primary wound closure of their surgical wound and treated prophylactically with NPWT following surgery probably experience fewer SSI than people treated with standard dressings (moderate-certainty evidence). There is no clear difference in number of deaths or wound dehiscence between people treated with NPWT and standard dressings (low-certainty evidence). There are also no clear differences in secondary outcomes where all evidence was low or very low-certainty. In caesarean section in obese women and surgery for lower limb fracture, there is probably little difference in quality of life scores (moderate-certainty evidence). Most evidence on pain is very low-certainty, but there is probably no difference in pain between NPWT and standard dressings after surgery for lower limb fracture (moderate-certainty evidence). Assessments of cost-effectiveness of NPWT produced differing results in different indications. There is a large number of ongoing studies, the results of which may change the findings of this review. Decisions about use of NPWT should take into account surgical indication and setting and consider evidence for all outcomes.

Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure.

BACKGROUND: Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of NPWT for preventing SSI in wounds healing through primary closure, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPWT in wounds healing through primary closure. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and references of included studies, systematic reviews and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, publication date or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another type of NPWT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and quality assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. MAIN RESULTS: In this third update, we added 15 new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three new economic studies, resulting in a total of 44 RCTs (7447 included participants) and five economic studies. Studies evaluated NPWT in the context of a wide range of surgeries including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular and general procedures. Economic studies assessed NPWT in orthopaedic, obstetric and general surgical settings. All studies compared NPWT with standard dressings. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain. Primary outcomes Four studies (2107 participants) reported mortality. There is low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision) showing no clear difference in the risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT (2.3%) compared with standard dressings (2.7%) (risk ratio (RR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.47; I2 = 0%). Thirty-nine studies reported SSI; 31 of these (6204 participants), were included in meta-analysis. There is moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded once for risk of bias) that NPWT probably results in fewer SSI (8.8% of participants) than treatment with standard dressings (13.0% of participants) after surgery; RR 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80 ; I2 = 23%). Eighteen studies reported dehiscence; 14 of these (3809 participants) were included in meta-analysis. There is low-certainty evidence (downgraded once for risk of bias and once for imprecision) showing no clear difference in the risk of dehiscence after surgery for NPWT (5.3% of participants) compared with standard dressings (6.2% of participants) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.13; I2 = 0%). Secondary outcomes There is low-certainty evidence showing no clear difference between NPWT and standard treatment for the outcomes of reoperation and incidence of seroma. For reoperation, the RR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.41; I2 = 13%; 12 trials; 3523 participants); for seroma, the RR was 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; seven trials; 729 participants). The effect of NPWT on occurrence of haematoma or skin blisters is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence); for haematoma, the RR was 0.67 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.59; I2 = 0%; nine trials; 1202 participants) and for blisters the RR was 2.64 (95% CI 0.65 to 10.68; I2 = 69%; seven trials; 796 participants). The overall effect of NPWT on pain is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence from seven trials (2218 participants) which reported disparate measures of pain); but moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably little difference between the groups in pain after three or six months following surgery for lower limb fracture (one trial, 1549 participants). There is also moderate-certainty evidence for women undergoing caesarean sections (one trial, 876 participants) and people having surgery for lower limb fractures (one trial, 1549 participants) that there is probably little difference in quality of life scores at 30 days or 3 or 6 months, respectively. Cost-effectiveness Five economic studies, based wholly or partially on trials included in our review, assessed the cost-effectiveness of NPWT compared with standard care. They considered NPWT in four indications: caesarean sections in obese women; surgery for lower limb fracture; knee/hip arthroplasty and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. They calculated quality-adjusted life-years for treatment groups and produced estimates of the treatments' relative cost-effectiveness. The reporting quality was good but the grade of the evidence varied from moderate to very low. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT in surgery for lower limb fracture was not cost-effective at any threshold of willingness-to-pay and that NPWT is probably cost-effective in obese women undergoing caesarean section. Other studies found low or very low-certainty evidence indicating that NPWT may be cost-effective for the indications assessed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People experiencing primary wound closure of their surgical wound and treated prophylactically with NPWT following surgery probably experience fewer SSI than people treated with standard dressings (moderate-certainty evidence). There is no clear difference in number of deaths or wound dehiscence between people treated with NPWT and standard dressings (low-certainty evidence). There are also no clear differences in secondary outcomes where all evidence was low or very low-certainty. In caesarean section in obese women and surgery for lower limb fracture, there is probably little difference in quality of life scores (moderate-certainty evidence). Most evidence on pain is very low-certainty, but there is probably no difference in pain between NPWT and standard dressings after surgery for lower limb fracture (moderate-certainty evidence). Assessments of cost-effectiveness of NPWT produced differing results in different indications. There is a large number of ongoing studies, the results of which may change the findings of this review. Decisions about use of NPWT should take into account surgical indication and setting and consider evidence for all outcomes.

Electromedical devices in wound healing management: a narrative review.

Wound healing is the sum of physiological sequential steps, leading to skin restoration. However, in some conditions, such as diabetes, pressure ulcers (PU) and venous legs ulcers (VLU), healing is a major challenge and requires multiple strategies. In this context, some electromedical devices may accelerate and/or support wound healing, modulating the inflammatory, proliferation (granulation) and tissue-remodelling phases. This review describes some helpful electromedical devices including: ultrasonic-assisted wound debridement; electrotherapy; combined ultrasound and electric field stimulation; low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields; phototherapy (for example, laser therapy and light-emitting diode (LED) therapy); biophotonic therapies, and pressure therapies (for example, negative pressure wound therapy, and high pressure and intermittent pneumatic compression) The review focuses on the evidence-based medicine and adequate clinical trial design in relation to these devices.

Instillation negative pressure wound therapy: An effective approach for hardware salvage.

Wound infection involving hardware can be notoriously difficult to treat, often requiring the removal of the infected implant. The goal of this study was to determine the utility of instillation negative pressure wound therapy to help eradicate infection and allow for definitive wound closure in patients without removing the infected hardware. A retrospective review was performed on the outcomes of 28 patients who presented with open wounds with exposed or infected hardware and who were treated with a combination of surgical debridement and negative pressure wound therapy with instillation (NPWTi). Eleven patients were treated for infected spinal hardware, 12 for extremity, and 5 for sternal hardware. Twenty-five of 28 (89%) patients had successful retention or replacement of hardware, with clearance of infection and healed wounds. Original hardware was maintained in 17 of 28 (61%) patients. In 11 patients, original hardware was removed, with subsequent replacement in eight of those patients after a clean wound was achieved. Average time to definitive closure was 12.6 days. Average follow-up was 135 days. This series supports NPWTi as an effective adjunct therapy to help expeditiously eradicate hardware infection, allowing for hardware retention.

Hand-Crafted Endoluminal Vacuum-Assisted Drainage for Anastomotic Leak After IPAA.

INTRODUCTION: The vacuum-assisted drainage has many applications in managing complex wound healing. It quickens the recovery period by its hyperemic effect on the exposed zone, decreasing bacterial colonization, preventing tissue edema, and promoting granulation of the wound. However, its use in anastomotic leak after IPAA is scarcely studied, especially because a proprietary endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure system was removed from the US market. TECHNIQUE: We applied a hand-crafted endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure system using the existing standard wound vacuum-assisted closure supplies to 2 patients who developed an anastomotic leak with a presacral abscess after completion proctectomy with J-pouch construction. RESULTS: We changed the endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure drain every 2 to 3 days, and both patients had substantial improvements in their abscess cavity after the seventh and ninth applications. CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic leak at the IPAA traditionally takes up to a year to heal, which causes a significant toll on the psychosocial life of the patient and delayed stoma closure. Therefore, we believe that facilitating the healing process by using our hand-crafted endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure drain might provide a great value to patients' quality of life.

A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of a single-use negative pressure wound therapy system, compared to traditional negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of chronic ulcers of the lower extremities.

Multicenter, phase-4, randomized, comparative-efficacy study in patients with VLUs or DFUs comparing for noninferiority the percentage change in target ulcer dimensions (area, depth, and volume) a single-use negative pressure wound therapy (s-NPWT) system versus traditional NPWT (t-NPWT) over a 12-week treatment period or up to confirmed healing. Baseline values were taken at the randomization visit. Randomized by wound type and size, 164 patients with non-infected DFUs and VLUs were included. The ITT population was composed of 161 patients (101 with VLUs, 60 with DFUs) and 115 patients completed follow-up (64 in the s-NPWT group and 51 in the t-NPWT group) (PP population). The average age for all patients was 61.5 years, 36.6% were women, and treatment groups were statistically similar at baseline. Primary endpoint analyses on wound area reduction demonstrated statistically significant reduction in favor of s-NPWT (p = 0.003) for the PP population and for the ITT population (p < 0.001). Changes in wound depth (p = 0.018) and volume (p = 0.013) were also better with s-NPWT. Faster wound closure was observed with s-NPWT (Cox Proportional Hazards ratio (0.493 (0.273, 0.891); p = 0.019) in the ITT population. Wound closure occurred in 45% of patients in the s-NPWT group vs. 22.2% of patients in the t-NPWT group (p = 0.002). Median estimate of the time to wound closure was 77 days for s-NPWT. No estimate could be provided for t-NPWT due to the low number of patients achieving wound closure. Device-related AEs were more frequent in the t-NPWT group (41 AEs from 29 patients) than in the s-NPWT group (16 AEs from 12 patients). The s-NPWT system met noninferiority and achieved statistical superiority vs. t-NPWT in terms of wound progression toward healing over the treatment period. When NPWT is being considered for the management of challenging VLUs and DFUs, s-NPWT should be considered a first choice over other types of NPWT.

Novel negative pressure wound therapy device without foam or gauze is effective at -50 mmHg.

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) promotes healing in acute or chronic wounds. Conventional NPWT devices consist of a filler (such as foam or gauze) that covers the wound and of a permeable membrane and tubing that connects the space under the membrane to a suction pump. The permeable membrane increases airflow and thus increases the required pump capacity that can cause patient discomfort or even ischemia in wounds with compromised vascularity. In addition, foam or gauze may fragment and become colonized with bacteria over time. To mitigate these, negative aspects, we have developed a new impermeable single layer component membrane dressing to deliver NPWT that does not need a foam or gauze to function. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to introduce this novel NPWT system (platform wound device, PWD) and evaluate its usability and effectiveness in the treatment of porcine full-thickness burns. A total of 48 burn wounds were created across four Yorkshire pigs on the dorsum. Wounds were created on day 0 and continuous NPWT with -50 mmHg and - 80 mmHg was initiated immediately. Subsequently, the burns were debrided on day 3 and animals were euthanized on day 7. The efficacy of the PWD on wound healing and reduction of bacterial burden was measured and compared to wounds that did not receive NPWT. The results showed that PWD promoted wound healing by outperforming the wounds that did not receive NPWT and that PWD was efficient at reducing bacteria from the burn eschar and from the wound bed. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that PWD promoted wound healing with a negative pressure as low as -50 mmHg, which likely benefits healing and avoids potential safety issues.

Empirical measurement of pressure in negative pressure wound therapy for infected wounds: How long can it really stay under pressure?

Surgical site infections represent one of the most common surgical complications. Negative pressure wound therapy is considered an effective wound management system, based on the principle that a negative pressure inside the wound can suction fluids and approximate wound edges. With the negative pressure wound therapy systems commercially available it is assumed that the pressure inside the wound is stable at the set values. We conducted a prospective experimental study to investigate this. The negative pressure level achieved inside the dressing was investigated at a standard distance from the pad of suction and at specific times in patients with surgical site infections. Pressure measurements were performed in 28 dressings in 14 patients admitted to the Emergency Surgery Department between April 2016 and June 2017. In general, the machine was set at a pressure of -100 mmHg. Negative pressure was measured with a portable pressure reader in the dressing sponge at a distance of 0, 1.5, and 3 cm from the suction pad at the time of dressing change at 24 and 48 hours. The data suggest that there is a significant decrease in negative pressure at both 1.5 and 3 cm from the suction pad at 48 hours from the dressing change (p = 0.0001 and p < 0.0001, respectively). This preliminary study shows with statistical significance that the pressure inside the sponge of a negative pressure wound therapy system decreases after 48 hours, confirming that the pressure inside the system is not the same as the pressure reported by the machine and, instead of being stable, changes overtime.

Feasibility of a disposable canister-free negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) device for treating open wounds in horses.

BACKGROUND: Wounds are among the most common medical conditions affecting horses and have a major economic impact on the horse industry. Wound healing in horses is distinct to that documented in other species, and often results in delayed healing and extensive scarring, with compromised functional and aesthetic outcomes. To date, there is no conventional method objectively proven to accelerate healing or to successfully prevent complications associated with second intention healing. Several effects of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) may be particularly useful to the management of wounds in horses. However, cumbersome designs of classic NPWT devices render them unsuitable for equine practice. A new lightweight, portable and disposable unit of NPWT (PICO®), should facilitate the use of this modality by equine practitioners. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using this canister-free system to treat experimental open wounds in horses. RESULTS: No difficulties were encountered with the application or maintenance of the PICO® system during the ex vivo experiment or during the preliminary in vivo experiment conducted on intact skin. All horses readily tolerated the PICO® but difficulties with adhesion and seal prevented the completion of the experimental wound study despite the use of many adjunctive adhesives. CONCLUSION: The current PICO® dressing design is not suitable to be used as a dressing for open wounds in horses though the device is well tolerated by equine patients. A dressing with a wider adhesive edge, a superior adhesive and a more flexible pad would likely be better adapted to enable its future use in equine practice.

Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure.

BACKGROUND: Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). While existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT remains uncertain, new trials necessitated an updated review of the evidence for the effects of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing through primary closure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus in February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and checked reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions on language, publication date, or setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another type of NPWT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and quality assessment according to GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: In this second update we added 25 intervention trials, resulting in a total of 30 intervention trials (2957 participants), and two economic studies nested in trials. Surgeries included abdominal and colorectal (n = 5); caesarean section (n = 5); knee or hip arthroplasties (n = 5); groin surgery (n = 5); fractures (n = 5); laparotomy (n = 1); vascular surgery (n = 1); sternotomy (n = 1); breast reduction mammoplasty (n = 1); and mixed (n = 1). In three key domains four studies were at low risk of bias; six studies were at high risk of bias; and 20 studies were at unclear risk of bias. We judged the evidence to be of low or very low certainty for all outcomes, downgrading the level of the evidence on the basis of risk of bias and imprecision.Primary outcomesThree studies reported mortality (416 participants; follow-up 30 to 90 days or unspecified). It is uncertain whether NPWT has an impact on risk of death compared with standard dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision).Twenty-five studies reported on SSI. The evidence from 23 studies (2533 participants; 2547 wounds; follow-up 30 days to 12 months or unspecified) showed that NPWT may reduce the rate of SSIs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias).Fourteen studies reported dehiscence. We combined results from 12 studies (1507 wounds; 1475 participants; follow-up 30 days to an average of 113 days or unspecified) that compared NPWT with standard dressings. It is uncertain whether NPWT reduces the risk of wound dehiscence compared with standard dressings (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.18; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and once for serious imprecision).Secondary outcomesWe are uncertain whether NPWT increases or decreases reoperation rates when compared with a standard dressing (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.63; 6 trials; 1021 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision) or if there is any clinical benefit associated with NPWT for reducing wound-related readmission to hospital within 30 days (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.57; 7 studies; 1271 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). It is also uncertain whether NPWT reduces incidence of seroma compared with standard dressings (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; 6 studies; 568 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and once for serious imprecision). It is uncertain if NPWT reduces or increases the risk of haematoma when compared with a standard dressing (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.42; 6 trials; 831 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision. It is uncertain if there is a higher risk of developing blisters when NPWT is compared with a standard dressing (RR 6.64, 95% CI 3.16 to 13.95; 6 studies; 597 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision).Quality of life was not reported separately by group but was used in two economic evaluations to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). There was no clear difference in incremental QALYs for NPWT relative to standard dressing when results from the two trials were combined (mean difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.00; moderate-certainty evidence).One trial concluded that NPWT may be more cost-effective than standard care, estimating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value of GBP 20.65 per QALY gained. A second cost-effectiveness study estimated that when compared with standard dressings NPWT was cost saving and improved QALYs. We rated the overall quality of the reports as very good; we did not grade the evidence beyond this as it was based on modelling assumptions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the addition of 25 trials, results are consistent with our earlier review, with the evidence judged to be of low or very low certainty for all outcomes. Consequently, uncertainty remains about whether NPWT compared with a standard dressing reduces or increases the incidence of important outcomes such as mortality, dehiscence, seroma, or if it increases costs. Given the cost and widespread use of NPWT for SSI prophylaxis, there is an urgent need for larger, well-designed and well-conducted trials to evaluate the effects of newer NPWT products designed for use on clean, closed surgical incisions. Such trials should initially focus on wounds that may be difficult to heal, such as sternal wounds or incisions on obese patients.