Premium
Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical site infections: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Gao Junru,
Wang Yunyun,
Song Jingyu,
Li Ze,
Ren Jianan,
Wang Peige
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of advanced nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.948
H-Index - 155
eISSN - 1365-2648
pISSN - 0309-2402
DOI - 10.1111/jan.14876
Subject(s) - medicine , meta analysis , negative pressure wound therapy , randomized controlled trial , odds ratio , adverse effect , relative risk , confidence interval , surgery , surgical wound , medline , debridement (dental) , systematic review , pathology , alternative medicine , political science , law
Objective Negative pressure wound therapy is one of the most common treatments for infected wounds. The aim of this meta‐analysis was to compare the efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy with conventional treatment methods in the treatment of surgical site infection. Design This study is registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Data Sources The Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched. Methods The systematic review was searched by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses method. All trials reporting the use of negative pressure wound therapy for surgical site infection treatment were included regardless of surgery type. The primary outcome measure was wound healing. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, medical costs, adverse events, and reoperation rates. Results are presented with 95% confidence intervals and report estimates as odds ratios. Heterogeneity was determined through the I 2 test, with I 2 > 50% indicating substantial heterogeneity and p < .10 significance. The search was performed on 10 March 2020. Results We identified 13 eligible trial comparisons, of which 2 were randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort study. Negative pressure wound therapy in surgical site infection (SSI) patients significantly increased wound healing rate, accelerated wound healing time, increased daily wound healing area, reduced hospital stay, and reduced adverse events. However, negative pressure wound therapy was associated with increased medical costs. Conclusion Negative pressure wound therapy may be more effective for the treatment of surgical site infection relative to conventional debridement, dressings and other treatments. However, further high‐quality randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the most optimal application of negative pressure wound therapy. Impact. Negative pressure wound therapy is the best treatment strategy for surgical site infection. This study can improve medical practitioners’ awareness of negative pressure wound therapy for surgical site infection, promoting the development of relevant randomized controlled trials.