Does Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Prevent Sternal Wound Infections?

BACKGROUND: Incisional negative pressure wound therapy has been described as an effective method to prevent wound infections after open heart surgery in several publications. However, most studies have examined relatively small patient groups, only a few were randomized, and some have manufacturer-sponsorship. Most of the studies have utilized Prevena; there are only a few reports describing the PICO incisional negative pressure wound therapy system. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving a propensity score-matched analysis to evaluate the effect of PICO incisional negative pressure wound therapy after coronary artery bypass grafting. A total of 180 high-risk patients with obesity or diabetes were included in the study group. The control group included 772 high-risk patients operated before the initiation of the study protocol. RESULTS: The rates of deep sternal wound infections in the PICO group and in the control group were 3.9 and 3.1%, respectively. The rates of superficial wound infections needing operative treatment were 3.1 and 0.8%, respectively. After propensity score matching with two groups of 174 patients, the incidence of both deep and superficial infections remained slightly elevated in the PICO group. None of the infections were due to technical difficulties or early interruption of the treatment. CONCLUSION: It seems that incisional negative pressure wound therapy with PICO is not effective in preventing wound infections after coronary artery bypass grafting. The main difference in this study compared with previous reports is the relatively low incidence of infections in our control group.

Negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of deep sternal wound infections - a critical appraisal.

Introduction. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has widely become the first-line option in the treatment of deep sternal wound infections. After several positive reports in comparison with conventional treatment, very recent studies comparing NPWT with early reconstruction have favored the latter. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of NPWT in comparison with early flap reconstruction. Materials and methods. We concluded a retrospective analysis of 125 patients with deep sternal wound infection treated in a single institution between the years 2006 and 2018. NPWT became the first-line treatment in our hospital in 2011. The study group consisted of 55 patients treated primarily with NPWT with or without subsequent flap reconstruction. The control group consisted of 60 patients treated with flap reconstruction without prior NPWT. Ten patients with an immediate re-fixation and direct wound closure were excluded. Results. There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning the type or urgency of the original open-heart surgery, age, gender, or co-morbidities. In the NPWT group there was significantly higher mortality (p = .002), longer stay in the intensive care unit (p = .028), and in the university hospital (p < .001) as well as higher number of operations (p < .001). However, there were somewhat more surgical complications in the control group as well as a higher number of distant flap reconstructions. Overall, five patients suffered from NPWT associated bleeding. Conclusion. Our results raise concerns about the wide use of NPWT as a first-line treatment of deep sternal wound infections. Further evaluative studies are warranted to confirm the results.

Modified internal mammary artery perforator flap in treatment of sternal wound complications.

OBJECTIVES: There are multiple treatment strategies and flap options to cover defects after deep sternal wound infections and other similar sternal defects. The choice of flap is made according to surgeons' preferences and the size and location of the defect. Our aim is to introduce a new option to cover these kinds of defects with an internal mammary artery perforator flap combined with a pectoralis major muscle flap mostly raised with a muscle-sparing technique. DESIGN: We treated 13 patients with a sternal defect after cardiothoracic operations with this technique between 2010-2016. Ten patients had a deep sternal wound infection, two had an infection of the prosthesis after carotico-subclavian bypass and one had a fragmented sternum. Nine patients were treated with an internal mammary artery perforator fasciocutaneous flap with a muscle-sparing pectoralis major muscle flap and four patients with an internal mammary artery perforator fasciocutaneous flap combined with a right pectoralis major muscle flap. RESULTS: Three patients (23%) experienced major complications and four patients (31%) had conservatively treated minor complications. There were no flap losses. CONCLUSION: This combination of flaps is a suitable option for patients with large defects in whom direct skin closure is not possible. It can be utilized for defects comprising the entire vertical length of the sternum. These are local flaps with a short operation time and are therefore most suitable for patients with comorbidities in whom major surgery is not an option.

Decreasing complications of pectoralis major muscle flap reconstruction with two modalities of negative pressure wound therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Deep sternal wound infection is a feared complication of open-heart surgery. Negative pressure wound therapy has gained an important role in the treatment of deep sternal wound infection. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy has been introduced as a method to prevent wound complications after sternotomy, and lately, after flap reconstructions in the treatment of deep sternal wound infection. We aimed to study if incisional negative pressure wound therapy with PICO™ had similar beneficial effect described earlier with competing commercial devices. METHODS: This study included 82 patients treated with pectoralis major muscle flap for deep sternal wound infection during the years 2006-2020. PICO group consisted of 24 patients treated with preoperative negative pressure wound therapy and postoperative incisional negative pressure wound therapy (PICO™). Two control groups included 48 patients with conventional treatment and 10 patients with preoperative negative pressure wound therapy only. RESULTS: In the PICO group, the complication rate declined from 50.0% to 33.30%, major complication rate from 29.2% to 12.5%, and need for an additional flap from 14.6.% to 4.2% when compared to conventional treatment. The length of hospital stay decreased as well. Preoperative negative pressure wound therapy alone was associated with moderate decline in the complication rates. In addition, we described the use of split pectoralis major muscle flap reconstruction in 57 patients. To our knowledge, this is the largest published patient series describing this method in the treatment of deep sternal wound infection. CONCLUSIONS: Incisional negative pressure wound therapy with PICO™ seems beneficial after flap reconstruction. Split pectoralis major muscle flap is a versatile reconstruction option suitable to be used as a workhorse in the treatment of deep sternal wound infection.