Ceppa Eugene P, Kim Rachel C, Niedzwiecki Donna, Lowe Melissa E, Warren Dana A, House Michael G, Nakeeb Attila, Zani Sabino, Moyer Ashley N, Blazer Dan G
From the Department of Surgery, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN (Ceppa, Kim, House, Nakeeb).
Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (Niedzwiecki), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
J Am Coll Surg. 2023 Apr 1;236(4):698-708. doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000547. Epub 2023 Jan 10.
Despite institutional perioperative bundles and national infection prevention guidelines, surgical site infection (SSI) after a major abdominal operation remains a significant source of morbidity. Negative pressure therapy (NPT) has revolutionized care for open wounds but the role of closed incision NPT (ciNPT) remains unclear.
We conducted a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial evaluating SSI after major elective colorectal or hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01905397). Patients were randomized to receive conventional wound care vs ciNPT (Prevena Incision Management System, 3M Health Care, San Antonio, TX). The primary endpoint was postoperative incisional SSI. SSI incidence was evaluated at inpatient days 4 or 5 and again at postoperative day 30. With 144 patients studied, the estimated power was 85% for detecting a difference in SSIs between 17% and 5% (conventional vs ciNPT; 1-sided α = 0.1). Secondary endpoints included SSI type, length of stay, 30-day readmission, and mortality. T-tests were used to compare continuous variables between treatments; similarly, chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant, except in the primary comparison of incisional and organ SSIs.
During the 2013 to 2021 time period, 164 patients were randomized, and of those, 138 were evaluable (ciNPT n = 63; conventional n = 75). Incisional SSIs occurred in 9 (14%) patients in the ciNPT group and 13 (17%) patients in the conventional group (p = 0.31). Organ or space SSIs occurred in 7 (11%) patients in the ciNPT group and 10 (13%) in the conventional therapy group (p = 0.35).
In this multi-institutional, randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing colorectal or hepatopancreatobiliary surgery, incidence of incisional SSIs between ciNPT and conventional wound therapy was not statistically significant. Future trials should focus on patient populations undergoing specific procedures types that have the highest risk for SSI.
尽管有机构围手术期综合措施和国家感染预防指南,但大型腹部手术后手术部位感染(SSI)仍是发病的重要原因。负压疗法(NPT)彻底改变了开放性伤口的护理方式,但闭合切口负压疗法(ciNPT)的作用仍不明确。
我们进行了一项多机构随机对照试验,评估择期结直肠或肝胰胆大手术后的SSI(临床试验注册号:NCT01905397)。患者被随机分为接受传统伤口护理组和ciNPT组(Prevena切口管理系统,3M医疗保健公司,德克萨斯州圣安东尼奥)。主要终点是术后切口SSI。在住院第4或5天以及术后第30天评估SSI发生率。研究144例患者,检测SSI发生率在17%和5%之间差异(传统组与ciNPT组;单侧α = 0.1)的估计效能为85%。次要终点包括SSI类型、住院时间、30天再入院率和死亡率。采用t检验比较治疗组间的连续变量;同样,采用卡方检验比较分类变量。p值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义,但切口和器官SSI的主要比较除外。
在2013年至2021年期间,164例患者被随机分组,其中138例可评估(ciNPT组n = 63;传统组n = 75)。ciNPT组9例(14%)患者发生切口SSI,传统组13例(17%)患者发生切口SSI(p = 0.31)。ciNPT组7例(11%)患者发生器官或腔隙SSI,传统治疗组10例(13%)患者发生器官或腔隙SSI(p = 0.35)。
在这项针对结直肠或肝胰胆手术患者的多机构随机对照试验中,ciNPT与传统伤口治疗的切口SSI发生率无统计学差异。未来试验应聚焦于接受具有最高SSI风险的特定手术类型的患者群体。