Garg Arun, Jayant Sneh, Gupta Arun Kumar, Bansal Lalit Kumar, Wani Abid, Chaudhary Poras
Department of Surgery, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, New Delhi, India.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, New Delhi, India.
Pol Przegl Chir. 2021 Jun 25;93(5):1-5. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0014.9759.
The aim of this study was to compare the post-operative effects of closed incision negative pressure wound therapy with conventional dressing in emergency laparotomy.
This study was conducted from 1st November 2018 to 31st March 2020 in ABVIMS & Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi. The potential candidates for the study were patients of 18 years and above who were admitted in surgical emergency and underwent emergency laparotomy by a midline incision. Fifty random patients were alternatively allotted to group A (25 patients) and group B (25 patients). In the patients of group A, closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) was applied on midline closed wound after an exploratory laparotomy procedure. The patients in group B, standard dry gauze dressing was done.
The mean age of patients in group A and group B were 46.76±12.20 and 41.96±8.33 years, respectively (p-value-0.11). The wound infection was present in 12% of cases in group A and 32% in group B, but when we calculate the p-value, it was found to be statistically non-significant (p-value-0.08). Similarly, seroma formation and wound dehiscence were found less in group A as compared to group B but not reached up to a statistically significant limit (p-value 0.55 and 0.38 respectively). The frequency of dressing change was 1-2 per week in 92% of cases in group A while it was 3-4 per week in 68% of cases in group B. The mean time of the frequency of dressing change was 1.24±0.72 per week and 4.28±1.90 per week in both the groups respectively (p-value <0.001). There was no significant (p>0.05) difference in the duration of hospital stay between group A (mean hospital stay 8.20±2.34 days) and group B (mean hospital stay 8.21±3.37 days).
Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy has no advantages over conventional dressing in terms of post-operative complications and hospital stay. However, it reduces the frequency of dressing change significantly, which reduces the mental stress of the patient and the burden of changing daily dressing.
本研究旨在比较急诊剖腹手术中闭合切口负压伤口治疗与传统敷料的术后效果。
本研究于2018年11月1日至2020年3月31日在新德里的ABVIMS和R.M.L.博士医院进行。该研究的潜在对象为18岁及以上因外科急诊入院并通过中线切口接受急诊剖腹手术的患者。50名随机患者被交替分配到A组(25例患者)和B组(25例患者)。A组患者在剖腹探查术后,对中线闭合伤口应用闭合切口负压伤口治疗(ciNPWT)。B组患者进行标准干纱布敷料包扎。
A组和B组患者的平均年龄分别为46.76±12.20岁和41.96±8.33岁(p值为0.11)。A组12%的病例发生伤口感染,B组为32%,但计算p值时发现无统计学意义(p值为0.08)。同样,与B组相比,A组的血清肿形成和伤口裂开较少,但未达到统计学显著水平(p值分别为0.55和0.38)。A组92%的病例每周换药1 - 2次,而B组68%的病例每周换药3 - 4次。两组换药频率的平均时间分别为每周1.24±0.72次和每周4.28±1.90次(p值<0.001)。A组(平均住院时间8.20±2.34天)和B组(平均住院时间8.21±3.37天)之间的住院时间无显著差异(p>0.05)。
在术后并发症和住院时间方面,闭合切口负压伤口治疗与传统敷料相比没有优势。然而,它显著降低了换药频率,从而减轻了患者的精神压力和日常换药的负担。