Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery- The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy.
Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery- The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy.
Surgery. 2021 May;169(5):1069-1075. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.10.029. Epub 2020 Nov 27.
Surgical site infections are an important burden of pancreatic surgery, prolonging hospitalization and delaying adjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to compare negative pressure wound therapy with standard sterile dressing in terms of the prevention of non-organ-space surgical site infection (superficial and deep surgical site infection) in the high-risk setting.
The trial was conducted at the University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy, from July 25, 2018, through October 10, 2019, among adults undergoing surgery for periampullary neoplasms. Only patients at high-risk for surgical site infection based on body mass index, diabetes, steroids, neoadjuvant therapy, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Charlson comorbidity index, duration of surgery, and blood loss were included and randomized.
A total of 351 patients were screened, 100 met the inclusion criteria and were 1:1 allocated in the 2 arms. The difference in terms of non-organ-space surgical site infection comparing negative pressure wound therapy with standard sterile dressing was not significant (10.9 vs 12.2%, risk ratio [RR] 1.144, confidence interval [CI] 95% 0.324-4.040, P = 1.000). Hematomas (4.3 vs 2%, RR 1.565, CI 95% 0.312-7.848, P = .609) and organ-space infections (46.7 vs 43.8%, RR 1.059, CI 95% 0.711-1.576, P = .836) were similar. Negative pressure wound therapy prevented the development of seromas (0 vs 12.2%, RR 0.483, CI 95% 0.390-0.599, P = .027). The aesthetic result assessed on postoperative day 7 was better in the negative pressure wound therapy group (visual analogue scale, 8 vs 7, P = .029; Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale, 3.2 vs 2.5, P = .009), but it was no more evident on postoperative day 30 after a total number of 23 dropouts.
Compared with standard sterile dressing, negative pressure wound therapy is not associated with an improved rate of non-organ-space surgical site infection after surgery for periampullary neoplasms in patients at high risk for surgical site infection. Additional studies will help identify the population that could benefit most from this intervention.
手术部位感染是胰腺手术的一个重要负担,会延长住院时间并延迟辅助治疗。本研究旨在比较负压伤口疗法与标准无菌敷料在高危环境下预防非器官间隙手术部位感染(浅表和深部手术部位感染)方面的效果。
该试验于 2018 年 7 月 25 日至 2019 年 10 月 10 日在意大利维罗纳大学医院信托基金进行,纳入接受胰周肿瘤手术的成年人。仅纳入基于体重指数、糖尿病、类固醇、新辅助治疗、美国麻醉医师协会评分、Charlson 合并症指数、手术持续时间和失血量等因素处于手术部位感染高危状态的患者,并进行随机分组。
共筛选了 351 名患者,100 名符合纳入标准,并按照 1:1 比例分配至 2 个治疗组。与标准无菌敷料相比,负压伤口疗法在非器官间隙手术部位感染方面的差异无统计学意义(10.9%对比 12.2%,风险比 [RR]1.144,置信区间 [CI]95%0.324-4.040,P=1.000)。血肿(4.3%对比 2%,RR1.565,CI95%0.312-7.848,P=.609)和器官间隙感染(46.7%对比 43.8%,RR1.059,CI95%0.711-1.576,P=.836)相似。负压伤口疗法可预防血清肿的发生(0%对比 12.2%,RR0.483,CI95%0.390-0.599,P=.027)。术后第 7 天,负压伤口治疗组的美学效果评估更好(视觉模拟量表,8 分对比 7 分,P=.029;Stony Brook 疤痕评估量表,3.2 分对比 2.5 分,P=.009),但在 30 天后,由于共有 23 名患者失访,差异不再明显。
与标准无菌敷料相比,在手术部位感染高危的胰周肿瘤患者中,负压伤口疗法与非器官间隙手术部位感染发生率的改善无关。进一步的研究将有助于确定最能从这种干预中获益的人群。