Elhage Kareem G, Awad Mohamed E, Irfan Furqan B, Lumbley Joshua, Mostafa Gamal, Saleh Khaled J
FAJR Scientific Northville Michigan 48167 USA.
Wayne State University, School of Medicine Detroit Michigan USA.
Health Sci Rep. 2022 Jan 23;5(1):e425. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.425. eCollection 2022 Jan.
Closed-incision negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPT) has shown promising effects for managing infected wounds. This meta-analysis explores the current state of knowledge on ciNPT in orthopedics and addresses whether ciNPT at -125 mmHg or -80 mmHg or conventional dressing reduces the incidence of surgical site complications in hip and knee arthroplasty.
This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane Handbook. Prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with ciNPT use compared to conventional dressings following hip and knee surgeries were considered for inclusion. Non-stratified and stratified meta-analyses of six RCTs were conducted to test for confounding and biases. A value less than .05 was considered statistically significant.
The included six RCTs have 611 patients. Total hip and knee arthroplasties were performed for 51.7% and 48.2% of the included population, respectively. Of 611 patients, conventional dressings were applied in 315 patients and 296 patients received ciNPT. Two ciNPT systems have been used across the six RCTs; PREVENA Incision Management System (-125 mmHg) (63.1%) and PICO dressing (-80 mmHg) (36.8%). The non-stratified analysis showed that the ciNPT system had a statistically significant, lower risk of persistent wound drainage as compared to conventional dressing following total hip and knee arthroplasties (OR = 0.28; = .002). There was no difference between ciNPT and conventional dressings in terms of wound hematoma, blistering, seroma, and dehiscence. The stratified meta-analysis indicated that patients undergoing treatment with high-pressure ciNPT (120 mmHg) displayed significantly fewer overall complications and persistent wound drainage ( = .00001 and = .002, respectively) when compared to low-pressure ciNPT (80 mmHg) and conventional dressings. In addition, ciNPT is associated with shorter hospital stays. ( = .005).
When compared to conventional wound dressing and -80 mmHg ciNPT, the use of -125 mmHg ciNPT is recommended in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty.
闭合切口负压伤口治疗(ciNPT)在处理感染伤口方面已显示出有前景的效果。这项荟萃分析探讨了骨科领域中ciNPT的当前知识状况,并探讨了-125 mmHg或-80 mmHg的ciNPT或传统敷料是否能降低髋关节和膝关节置换术中手术部位并发症的发生率。
本荟萃分析依据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南及Cochrane手册进行。纳入了在髋关节和膝关节手术后使用ciNPT与传统敷料进行比较的前瞻性随机对照试验(RCT)。对六项RCT进行了非分层和分层荟萃分析,以检验混杂因素和偏倚。P值小于0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
纳入的六项RCT共有611例患者。全髋关节置换术和全膝关节置换术分别占纳入人群的51.7%和48.2%。在611例患者中,315例应用了传统敷料,296例接受了ciNPT。六项RCT中使用了两种ciNPT系统;PREVENA切口管理系统(-125 mmHg)(63.1%)和PICO敷料(-80 mmHg)(36.8%)。非分层分析表明,与全髋关节和全膝关节置换术后的传统敷料相比,ciNPT系统在持续性伤口引流方面具有统计学意义的较低风险(OR = 0.28;P = 0.002)。在伤口血肿、水泡、血清肿和裂开方面,ciNPT与传统敷料之间没有差异。分层荟萃分析表明,与低压ciNPT(80 mmHg)和传统敷料相比,接受高压ciNPT(120 mmHg)治疗的患者总体并发症和持续性伤口引流明显更少(分别为P = 0.00001和P = 0.002)。此外,ciNPT与住院时间缩短相关(P = 0.005)。
与传统伤口敷料和-80 mmHg的ciNPT相比,建议在接受全关节置换术的患者中使用-125 mmHg的ciNPT。