Open AccessAre high‐risk patient and revision arthroplasty effective indications for closed‐incisional negative‐pressure wound therapy after total hip or knee arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Kim JunHo,
Lee DaeHee
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
international wound journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.867
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1742-481X
pISSN - 1742-4801
DOI - 10.1111/iwj.13393
Subject(s) - medicine , meta analysis , confidence interval , odds ratio , arthroplasty , complication , surgery , negative pressure wound therapy , cochrane library , subgroup analysis , systematic review , medline , randomized controlled trial , alternative medicine , pathology , political science , law
To determine the effective indications of closed‐incisional negative‐pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) following total hip or knee arthroplasty, this systematic review and meta‐analysis was conducted. The systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library, and 11 studies were included. The studies comparing between ciNPWT and conventional dressings were categorised into following subgroups based on patient risk and revision procedures: routine vs high‐risk patient; primary vs revision arthroplasty. Pooled estimates were calculated for wound complication and surgical site infection (SSI) rates in the subgroup analyses using Review Manager. In high‐risk patients, the overall rates of wound complication (odds ratio [OR] = 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15‐0.93; P = .030) and SSI (OR = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.09‐0.64; P = .005) were significantly lower in the ciNPWT; however, there were no differences in routine patients. In cases involving revision arthroplasties, the overall rates of wound complication (OR = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.18‐0.62; P < .001) and SSI (OR = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.11‐0.66; P = .004) were significantly lower in the ciNPWT; however, there were no differences in cases involving primary arthroplasties. In summary, ciNPWT showed a positive effect in decreasing the rates of wound complication and SSI in high‐risk patients and in revision arthroplasties.