Regner Justin L, Forestiere Matthew J, Munoz-Maldonado Yolanda, Frazee Richard, Isbell Travis S, Isbell Claire L, Smith Randall W, Abernathy Stephen W
Department of Surgery, Scott & White Medical Center, Temple, Texas.
Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2018 Jan 8;31(1):25-29. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2017.1400312. eCollection 2018 Jan.
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 ( = 51), open NPWT ( = 63), or the NPWT protocol ( = 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, = 0.001). Primary skin closure and NPWT protocol had fewer patients discharged with NPWT than open NWPT (0% and 14% vs 63.5%, < 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.
作为一项质量改进计划的一部分,将使用Hydrofera Blue®抑菌泡沫引流条和含银泡沫敷料来闭合急诊剖腹术后中线皮肤切口的负压伤口治疗(NPWT)方案,与单纯一期皮肤缝合以及传统的开放性伤口真空辅助闭合处理进行了比较。这项单机构回顾性队列研究评估了2013年7月至2014年6月期间所有连续的急诊剖腹术病例,但不包括清洁伤口。纳入的变量包括人口统计学资料、伤口分类、NPWT天数以及手术部位事件(SSO)。主要结局指标是NPWT天数。次要结局指标包括SSO(手术部位感染、筋膜裂开、返回手术室)。分析采用分类变量间的精确卡方检验、有序和分类变量方差分析的Kruskal-Wallis检验以及NPWT总天数的Wilcoxon秩和检验。158例患者接受了急诊剖腹术,其中一期皮肤缝合组(n = 51)、开放性NPWT组(n = 63)或NPWT方案组(n = 44)。三组之间美国麻醉医师协会身体状况评分、体重指数、伤口分类或SSO均无差异。与开放性NPWT相比,方案组的NPWT总天数减少(中位数3天对20.5天,范围3 - 51天对3 - 405天,P = 0.001)。一期皮肤缝合组和NPWT方案组出院时仍在接受NPWT的患者少于开放性NPWT组(0%和14%对63.5%,P < 0.0001,优势比 = 10.7,95%置信区间3.7 - 35.1)。一期皮肤缝合和NPWT方案可减少急诊中线剖腹术切口的NPWT使用天数,并维持较低的SSO发生率。