Effect of negative pressure wound therapy in exploratory laparotomies with coexisting ostomy

Avery Williams, K. Shrestha, Alexis Cruz, Anastazia Gilman, Jonathan Huynh, Justin G. Vaughan, Ariel P. Santos
{"title":"Effect of negative pressure wound therapy in exploratory laparotomies with coexisting ostomy","authors":"Avery Williams, K. Shrestha, Alexis Cruz, Anastazia Gilman, Jonathan Huynh, Justin G. Vaughan, Ariel P. Santos","doi":"10.12746/swrccc.v10i44.1061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: \nSurgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common healthcare-associated infections. The use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has shown to decrease the overall rate of SSI, wound dehiscence, and length of hospital stay in surgical conditions. This study aims to determine the impact of NPWT applied on closed surgical incisions on patients with coexisting ostomy undergoing exploratory laparotomy. \n  \nMethods: \nA retrospective study on patients who underwent exploratory laparotomies from 2017 to 2019 was conducted. NPWT was compared to standard post-operative surgical wound dressing. A sub-analysis of patients with ostomies was performed. \n  \nResults: \nA total of 286 patients who underwent exploratory laparotomy were identified; 51 patients received NPWT and 235 received standard dressing. The NPWT group had a higher percentage of patients with an ostomy (37.3% vs 20.4%, P=.016), of which 25.5% were colostomies (vs 12.3%) and 11.8% were ileostomies (vs 8.1%) with P=.002. No significant difference in the overall rate of SSI (7.8% vs 5.5%, P= .517), wound dehiscence (7.8% vs 2.1 %, P=.057), and seroma formation (3.9% vs 2.1%, P=.612) were observed. The mean length of ICU stay (3.5 vs 7.0, P=.051) and unplanned reoperation (5.9% vs 16.6%, P=.051) were lower in the NPWT group compared to the control group. Sub analysis of patients with stoma found no significant difference in SSI. \n  \nConclusions: \nIn our study, the use of NPWT on closed surgical incision wound was not associated with the reduction of SSI in patients with ostomies. Large studies are needed to ascertain significant benefits in patients with ostomies. \n  \nKeywords: negative pressure wound therapy, surgical site infection, ostomy, exploratory laparotomy","PeriodicalId":22976,"journal":{"name":"The Southwest Respiratory and Critical Care Chronicles","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Southwest Respiratory and Critical Care Chronicles","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12746/swrccc.v10i44.1061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common healthcare-associated infections. The use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has shown to decrease the overall rate of SSI, wound dehiscence, and length of hospital stay in surgical conditions. This study aims to determine the impact of NPWT applied on closed surgical incisions on patients with coexisting ostomy undergoing exploratory laparotomy.   Methods: A retrospective study on patients who underwent exploratory laparotomies from 2017 to 2019 was conducted. NPWT was compared to standard post-operative surgical wound dressing. A sub-analysis of patients with ostomies was performed.   Results: A total of 286 patients who underwent exploratory laparotomy were identified; 51 patients received NPWT and 235 received standard dressing. The NPWT group had a higher percentage of patients with an ostomy (37.3% vs 20.4%, P=.016), of which 25.5% were colostomies (vs 12.3%) and 11.8% were ileostomies (vs 8.1%) with P=.002. No significant difference in the overall rate of SSI (7.8% vs 5.5%, P= .517), wound dehiscence (7.8% vs 2.1 %, P=.057), and seroma formation (3.9% vs 2.1%, P=.612) were observed. The mean length of ICU stay (3.5 vs 7.0, P=.051) and unplanned reoperation (5.9% vs 16.6%, P=.051) were lower in the NPWT group compared to the control group. Sub analysis of patients with stoma found no significant difference in SSI.   Conclusions: In our study, the use of NPWT on closed surgical incision wound was not associated with the reduction of SSI in patients with ostomies. Large studies are needed to ascertain significant benefits in patients with ostomies.   Keywords: negative pressure wound therapy, surgical site infection, ostomy, exploratory laparotomy
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
负压伤口治疗在剖腹探查术并发造口术中的效果
背景:手术部位感染(SSI)是最常见的卫生保健相关感染之一。负压伤口治疗(NPWT)的使用已被证明可以降低手术条件下SSI的总体发生率、伤口裂开和住院时间。本研究旨在确定NPWT应用于闭合性手术切口对合并造口患者行剖腹探查术的影响。方法:对2017 - 2019年剖腹探查术患者进行回顾性研究。将NPWT与标准术后外科创面敷料进行比较。对造口患者进行亚组分析。结果:共发现286例剖腹探查患者;51例患者接受NPWT, 235例患者接受标准敷料。NPWT组造口比例较高(37.3% vs 20.4%, P= 0.016),其中结肠造口比例为25.5% (vs 12.3%),回肠造口比例为11.8% (vs 8.1%), P= 0.002。两组SSI发生率(7.8% vs 5.5%, P= 0.517)、创面裂开(7.8% vs 2.1%, P= 0.057)、血肿形成(3.9% vs 2.1%, P= 0.612)差异无统计学意义。NPWT组患者的平均ICU住院时间(3.5 vs 7.0, P= 0.051)和非计划再手术(5.9% vs 16.6%, P= 0.051)均低于对照组。对有造口的患者进行亚组分析,发现SSI无显著差异。结论:在我们的研究中,NPWT在闭合性手术切口伤口上的使用与造口患者SSI的减少无关。需要大量的研究来确定造口术对患者的显著益处。关键词:负压伤口治疗,手术部位感染,造口术,剖腹探查
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Management of post-extubation anxiety in the intensive care unit Nafcillin-induced thrombocytopenia: An uncommon complication Subacute inferior vena cava occlusion after treatment for advanced colorectal cancer: presentation and management Update-Exposure to dust events and hospitalizations in West Texas cities: The human health consequences of dust Cardiopulmonary exercise testing in post-COVID-19 patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1