The effectiveness of prophylactic closed incision negative pressure wound therapy compared to conventional dressings in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection post hip and knee revision arthroplasty surgery: A systematic review
{"title":"The effectiveness of prophylactic closed incision negative pressure wound therapy compared to conventional dressings in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection post hip and knee revision arthroplasty surgery: A systematic review","authors":"Tracy Morgan , Tamara Page","doi":"10.1016/j.ijotn.2023.101048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic closed incision negative pressure wound therapy<span> (ciNPWT) compared to conventional dressings in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection<span> (PJI) post hip and knee revision arthroplasty surgery.</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p><span>Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase., Emcare, </span>CINAHL and Scopus) were searched with no date or language limits. Two independent reviewers assessed articles against the inclusion criteria and methodological quality of the 3 included studies. Data was extracted using a customised data tool and included the intervention, study methods and outcomes of interest. A meta-analysis was performed, and results presented in narrative form with forest plots.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>The three studies, one randomized control trial and two quasi-experimental studies, included 136 intervention and 228 control participants (Sample 364). The PJI rate decreased in the ciNPWT cohort compared to the conservative dressing cohort (2 [1.47%] vs 27 [11.84%]). The reoperation rate was lower in the ciNPWT cohort versus the conventional cohort (4 [2.94%] vs 35 [15.35%]). The rate of wound complications was significantly decreased in the ciNPWT cohort compared to the conventional dressing cohort (14 [10.29%] v 85 [37.28), p=<0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Prophylactic application of ciNPWT may be effective in reducing wound complications, PJI and reoperation post hip and knee revision arthroplasty surgery. The added cost of ciNPWT may be justified in the reduction of wound complications, PJI and reoperation. Ongoing trials determining if the prophylactic application of ciNPWT post hip and knee revision arthroplasty surgery is beneficial in preventing PJI particularly in high risk patients with additional comorbidities are warranted.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45099,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing","volume":"53 ","pages":"Article 101048"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878124123000527","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) compared to conventional dressings in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) post hip and knee revision arthroplasty surgery.
Method
Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase., Emcare, CINAHL and Scopus) were searched with no date or language limits. Two independent reviewers assessed articles against the inclusion criteria and methodological quality of the 3 included studies. Data was extracted using a customised data tool and included the intervention, study methods and outcomes of interest. A meta-analysis was performed, and results presented in narrative form with forest plots.
Findings
The three studies, one randomized control trial and two quasi-experimental studies, included 136 intervention and 228 control participants (Sample 364). The PJI rate decreased in the ciNPWT cohort compared to the conservative dressing cohort (2 [1.47%] vs 27 [11.84%]). The reoperation rate was lower in the ciNPWT cohort versus the conventional cohort (4 [2.94%] vs 35 [15.35%]). The rate of wound complications was significantly decreased in the ciNPWT cohort compared to the conventional dressing cohort (14 [10.29%] v 85 [37.28), p=<0.001).
Conclusion
Prophylactic application of ciNPWT may be effective in reducing wound complications, PJI and reoperation post hip and knee revision arthroplasty surgery. The added cost of ciNPWT may be justified in the reduction of wound complications, PJI and reoperation. Ongoing trials determining if the prophylactic application of ciNPWT post hip and knee revision arthroplasty surgery is beneficial in preventing PJI particularly in high risk patients with additional comorbidities are warranted.