Surgical site infection requiring hospitalisation unchanged with a prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy guideline: an observational cohort study

S. Holford, S. Arrol, S. Tout, Charlotte Oyston
{"title":"Surgical site infection requiring hospitalisation unchanged with a prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy guideline: an observational cohort study","authors":"S. Holford, S. Arrol, S. Tout, Charlotte Oyston","doi":"10.26635/phd.2022.134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Despite numerous published prospective studies, evidence to support use of prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy, for obstetric and gynaecologic surgery, is conflicting. \nAim:  To evaluate if wound-related presentations to hospital were reduced following introduction of a guideline promoting selective use of prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy. \nMethods: This was an observational cohort study. Electronic medical records were reviewed for all hospital presentations, within 30 days of primary surgery performed by laparotomy, where the responsible clinician was an obstetrician or gynaecologist. Rates of wound complications and costs associated with admission were compared pre- and post-guideline. \nResults: Among all those who underwent caesarean birth (n = 2788) or gynaecologic laparotomy (n= 263), 5% presented to hospital with SSI, and 1% with non-infected wound problems. No significant reductions in SSI hospital presentations, length of stay, or readmission costs were observed post-implementation. Likewise, no improvements were observed for non-infected wound problems or a composite of SSI and non-infected wound problems. \nConclusions: This study does not support the selective approach used to direct prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy. Further studies are required to better individualise risk assessment, and to determine if negative pressure wound therapy can reduce serious morbidity of SSI. When robust evidence is lacking, local outcomes should be evaluated systematically and reviewed before new treatments become standard care.","PeriodicalId":82251,"journal":{"name":"Pacific health dialog","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific health dialog","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26635/phd.2022.134","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: Despite numerous published prospective studies, evidence to support use of prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy, for obstetric and gynaecologic surgery, is conflicting. Aim:  To evaluate if wound-related presentations to hospital were reduced following introduction of a guideline promoting selective use of prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy. Methods: This was an observational cohort study. Electronic medical records were reviewed for all hospital presentations, within 30 days of primary surgery performed by laparotomy, where the responsible clinician was an obstetrician or gynaecologist. Rates of wound complications and costs associated with admission were compared pre- and post-guideline. Results: Among all those who underwent caesarean birth (n = 2788) or gynaecologic laparotomy (n= 263), 5% presented to hospital with SSI, and 1% with non-infected wound problems. No significant reductions in SSI hospital presentations, length of stay, or readmission costs were observed post-implementation. Likewise, no improvements were observed for non-infected wound problems or a composite of SSI and non-infected wound problems. Conclusions: This study does not support the selective approach used to direct prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy. Further studies are required to better individualise risk assessment, and to determine if negative pressure wound therapy can reduce serious morbidity of SSI. When robust evidence is lacking, local outcomes should be evaluated systematically and reviewed before new treatments become standard care.
手术部位感染需要住院治疗的预防性切口负压伤口治疗指南:一项观察性队列研究
背景:尽管发表了许多前瞻性研究,但支持在产科和妇科手术中使用预防性切口负压伤口治疗的证据是相互矛盾的。目的:评估在引入一项促进选择性使用预防性切口负压伤口治疗的指南后,医院的伤口相关表现是否减少。方法:这是一项观察性队列研究。在剖腹手术后30天内,所有医院就诊的电子医疗记录都进行了审查,负责的临床医生是妇产科医生。比较指南前后的伤口并发症发生率和入院相关费用。结果:在所有接受剖腹产(n=2788)或妇科剖腹手术(n=263)的患者中,5%因SSI入院,1%因非感染性伤口问题入院。实施后,SSI住院情况、住院时间或再次入院费用均未显著降低。同样,未感染的伤口问题或SSI和未感染伤口问题的复合物没有观察到改善。结论:本研究不支持用于指导预防性切口负压伤口治疗的选择性方法。需要进一步的研究来更好地个性化风险评估,并确定负压伤口治疗是否可以降低SSI的严重发病率。当缺乏强有力的证据时,在新的治疗方法成为标准护理之前,应系统地评估和审查局部结果。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信