Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 Sep;73(3):629-39. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31825c130e.
Open abdominal management with negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is increasingly used for critically ill trauma and surgery patients. We sought to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of NPWT versus alternate temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques in critically ill adults with open abdominal wounds.
We conducted a systematic review of published and unpublished comparative studies. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database, the Center for Reviews and Dissemination, clinical trials registries, and bibliographies of included articles. Two authors independently abstracted data on study design, methodological quality, patient characteristics, and outcomes.
Among 2,715 citations identified, 2 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohort studies (3 prospective/6 retrospective) met inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of included prospective studies was moderate. One randomized controlled trial observed an improved fascial closure rate (relative risk [RR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-5.3) and length of hospital stay after addition of retention sutured sequential fascial closure to the Kinetic Concepts Inc. (KCI) vacuum-assisted closure (VAC). Another reported a trend toward enhanced fascial closure using the KCI VAC versus Barker's vacuum pack (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 0.95-7.1). A prospective cohort study observed improved mortality (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.92) and fascial closure (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0) for patients who received the ABThera versus Barker's vacuum pack. Another noted a reduced arterial lactate, intra-abdominal pressure, and hospital stay for those fitted with the KCI VAC versus Bogotá bag. Most included retrospective studies exhibited low methodological quality and reported no mortality or fascial closure benefit for NPWT.
Limited prospective comparative data suggests that NPWT versus alternate TAC techniques may be linked with improved outcomes. However, the clinical heterogeneity and quality of available studies preclude definitive conclusions regarding the preferential use of NPWT over alternate TAC techniques.
Systematic review, level III.
负压伤口治疗(NPWT)的开放式腹部管理越来越多地用于重症创伤和手术患者。我们旨在确定 NPWT 与替代临时腹部闭合(TAC)技术在患有开放性腹部伤口的重症成人中的比较疗效和安全性。
我们对已发表和未发表的比较研究进行了系统评价。我们检索了 MEDLINE、PubMed、EMBASE、Scopus、Web of Science、Cochrane 数据库、评论和传播中心、临床试验注册处和纳入文章的参考文献。两位作者独立提取研究设计、方法学质量、患者特征和结局的数据。
在 2715 条引文识别中,2 项随机对照试验和 9 项队列研究(前瞻性/6 项回顾性)符合纳入标准。纳入前瞻性研究的方法学质量为中等。一项随机对照试验观察到添加保留缝线序贯筋膜闭合后筋膜闭合率(相对风险 [RR],2.4;95%置信区间 [CI],1.0-5.3)和住院时间的改善在 Kinetic Concepts Inc.(KCI)负压辅助闭合(VAC)的基础上。另一项报告使用 KCI VAC 与 Barker 真空包装相比,筋膜闭合率呈增加趋势(RR,2.6;95%CI,0.95-7.1)。一项前瞻性队列研究观察到接受 ABThera 与 Barker 真空包装的患者死亡率(RR,0.48;95%CI,0.25-0.92)和筋膜闭合率(RR,1.5;95%CI,1.1-2.0)改善。另一项研究注意到接受 KCI VAC 与 Bogotá 袋相比,动脉血乳酸、腹腔内压和住院时间降低。大多数纳入的回顾性研究方法学质量较低,报告 NPWT 与替代 TAC 技术相比无死亡率或筋膜闭合获益。
有限的前瞻性比较数据表明,NPWT 与替代 TAC 技术可能与改善结局相关。然而,可用研究的临床异质性和质量排除了关于 NPWT 优于替代 TAC 技术的优先使用的明确结论。
系统评价,III 级。