Piroski V.a· Müller E.b· Herrmann E.c· Hanisch E.a· Buia A.a

Author affiliations

aDepartment of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Asklepios Klinik Langen, Langen, Germany
bDepartement of Internal Medicine Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
cDepartment of Biostatistics and Mathematical Modeling, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.

Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Rent/Cloud Rent for 48h to view Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud Printing and saving restrictions apply Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00

Select

Subscribe Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

Subcription rates

Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Received: April 11, 2021
Accepted: October 25, 2021
Published online: January 18, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 10
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 2297-4725 (Print)
eISSN: 2297-475X (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/VIS

Abstract

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the leading complications in health care. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is meanwhile widely prophylactically used for preventing SSIs. For evaluating the results of the implantation of this technique, we used the Simon single-arm study design and examine whether NPWT has a prophylactic effect on reducing SSIs in a cohort of general surgery patients. Methods: This single-arm, two-stage study includes 81 elective general surgery patients and corresponds to the Simon’s design. The sample size calculation was based on a reduction in the superficial SSI rate from 12 to 4% (power 80%, significance level 5%) using a NPWT system. In compliance with Simon’s two-Stage design, the study required the recruitment of 34 patients in stage I and 47 patients in stage II. The two-stage design method would be discarded in case of a wound infection in 3 or more patients in stage I or 6 or more patients in stage II. Using the NPWT system in the operating room, a negative pressure wound dressing was applied post-operatively and removed after 7 days. According to the criteria of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), post-operative wound documentation followed on day 7 and 30. Results: In stage I, no SSI was apparent. In stage II, 3 patients had SSIs (CDC grade I). Conclusion: A prophylactic NPWT can significantly reduce the wound infection rate in elective general surgery.

© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel

References World Health Organization. Global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. 2nd ed. World Health Organization; 2018. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Annual epidemiological report for 2014 Surgical site infections. ECDC; 2016. Belda FJ, Aguilera L, García de la Asunción J, Alberti J, Vicente R, Ferrándiz L, et al. Supplemental perioperative oxygen and the risk of surgical wound infection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;294(16):2035–42. Krieger BR, Davis DM, Sanchez JE, Mateka JJL, Nfonsam VN, Frattini JC, et al. The use of silver nylon in preventing surgical site infections following colon and rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(8):1014–9. Leaper DJ, van Goor H, Reilly J, Petrosillo N, Geiss HK, Torres AJ, et al. Surgical site infection: a European perspective of incidence and economic burden. Int Wound J. 2004;1(4):247–73. Scott RD. The direct medical costs of healthcare-associated infections in U.S. hospitals and the benefits of prevention. Cdc; 2009 Mar 13. Pellino G, Sciaudone G, Selvaggi F, Canonico S. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy in colorectal surgery. Effects on surgical site events: current status and call to action. Updates Surg. 2015;67(3):235–45. O’Leary DP, Peirce C, Anglim B, Burton M, Concannon E, Carter M, et al. Prophylactic negative pressure dressing use in closed laparotomy wounds following abdominal operations. Ann Surg. 2017;265(6):1082–6. Scalise A, Calamita R, Tartaglione C, Pierangeli M, Bolletta E, Gioacchini M, et al. Improving wound healing and preventing surgical site complications of closed surgical incisions: a possible role of incisional negative pressure wound therapy. A systematic review of the literature. Int Wound J. 2016;13(6):1260–81. Leaper DJ, Edmiston CE. World Health Organization: global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. J Hosp Infect. 2017;95(2):135–6. Mihaljevic AL, Schirren R, Müller TC, Kehl V, Friess H, Kleeff J. Postoperative negative-pressure incision therapy following open colorectal surgery (Poniy): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16(1):471. Gillespie BM, Webster J, Ellwood D, Stapleton H, Whitty JA, Thalib L, et al. ADding negative pRESSure to improve healING (the DRESSING trial): a RCT protocol. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2):e010287. Evrard S, Audisio R, Poston G, Caballero C, Kataoka K, Fontein D, et al. From a comic opera to surcare an open letter to whom clinical research in surgery is a concern. Ann Surg. 2016;264(6):911–2. Diener MK, Knebel P, Kieser M, Schüler P, Schiergens TS, Atanassov V, et al. Effectiveness of triclosan-coated PDS plus versus uncoated PDS II sutures for prevention of surgical site infection after abdominal wall closure: the randomised controlled PROUD trial. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):142–52. The Centers for Disease Control. Draft guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection, 1998: CDC. Notice. Fed Regist. 1998;63(116):33168–92. Pinkney T, Bartlett D, Gheorghe A, Dowswell G, Morton D, Calvert M. Use of an online e-learning module to standardise the assessment and reporting of a subjective endpoint in a multicentre rct. Trials. 2013;14:S1. Culver DH, Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, et al. Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. Am J Med. 1991 Sep 16;91(3B):152S–7S. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13. Leaper D, Edmiston C. WHO: Global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. J Hosp Infect. 2017;95(2):135–6. NICE Guidelines update team. Surgical site infections: prevention and treatment CG74. NICE; 2018. Weiser MR, Gonen M, Usiak S, Pottinger T, Samedy P, Patel D, et al. Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary patient care bundle for reducing surgical-site infections. Br J Surg. 2018 Nov;105(12):1680–7. Garner JS. CDC guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections, 1985. Supersedes guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections published in 1982. (Originally published in November 1985). Revised. Infect Control. 1986;7(3):193–200. Simmons BP. Guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control. 1983 Aug;11(4):133–43. Allegranzi B, Bischoff P, de Jonge S, Kubilay NZ, Zayed B, Gomes SM, et al. New WHO recommendations on preoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective. The Lancet Inf Dis. 2016;16(12):e276–87. Sahebally SM, McKevitt K, Stephens I, Fitzpatrick F, Deasy J, Burke JP, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy for closed laparotomy incisions in general and colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(11):e183467. Kuper TM, Murphy PB, Kaur B, Ott MC. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy for closed laparotomy incisions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2020;271(1):67–74. Shiroky J, Lillie E, Muaddi H, Sevigny M, Choi WJ, Karanicolas PJ. The impact of negative pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions on surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery. 2020;167(6):1001–9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. PICO negative pressure wound dressings for closed surgical incisions. Med Technol Guid. 2019;NTG43:1–16. Tufts LS, Jarnagin ED, Flynn JR, Gonen M, Guillem JG, Paty PB, et al. A perioperative multidisciplinary care bundle reduces surgical site infections in patients undergoing synchronous colorectal and liver resection. HPB. 2018;21(2):181–6. Shen P, Blackham AU, Lewis S, Clark CJ, Howerton R, Mogal HD, et al. Phase II randomized trial of negative-pressure wound therapy to decrease surgical site infection in patients undergoing laparotomy for gastrointestinal, pancreatic, and peritoneal surface malignancies. J Am Col Surg. 2017 Apr;224(4):726–37. Murphy PB, Knowles S, Chadi SA, Vogt K, Brackstone M, Koughnett JAV, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy use to decrease surgical nosocomial events in colorectal resections (neptune): a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2019;270(1):38–42. Javed AA, Teinor J, Wright M, Ding D, Burkhart RA, Hundt J, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical-site infections: a randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2019;269(6):1034–40. Seidel D, Diedrich S, Herrle F, Thielemann H, Marusch F, Schirren R, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy vs conventional wound treatment in subcutaneous abdominal wound healing impairment: the sawhi randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(6):469–78. Mander AP, Thompson SG. Two-stage designs optimal under the alternative hypothesis for phase II cancer clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2010;31(6):572–8. Kunz CU, Kieser M. Optimal two-stage designs for single-arm phase II oncology trials with two binary endpoints. Methods Inf Med. 2011;50(4):372–7. Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Received: April 11, 2021
Accepted: October 25, 2021
Published online: January 18, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 10
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 2297-4725 (Print)
eISSN: 2297-475X (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/VIS

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.