评估腹部会阴切除术后负压伤口治疗:疗效和技术变异性的系统回顾。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
A Litchinko, F Ris, B Noiret, M Adamina, Q Denost
{"title":"评估腹部会阴切除术后负压伤口治疗:疗效和技术变异性的系统回顾。","authors":"A Litchinko, F Ris, B Noiret, M Adamina, Q Denost","doi":"10.1007/s10151-025-03212-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection (APR) for anal or low rectal cancer remain a significant clinical concern, frequently leading to surgical site infections (SSIs), wound dehiscence, and delayed healing. These complications contribute to increased patient morbidity, prolonged hospitalization, and higher healthcare costs. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) has been proposed to improve wound outcomes in this context, but evidence regarding its effectiveness remains inconclusive.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review evaluates the clinical outcomes and technical application of pNPWT in closed perineal wounds following APR, with a focus on its potential impact on SSIs, wound dehiscence, and healing time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies assessing pNPWT after APR. Key outcomes of interest were SSI rates, wound dehiscence, healing time, and length of hospital stay. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The results were heterogeneous: while three studies reported reduced SSI rates with pNPWT compared with conventional wound management, two studies observed higher SSI rates in the pNPWT groups. Variability in device type (canister-based versus portable systems), negative pressure settings, application duration, and patient selection limited the comparability across studies. The risk of bias was moderate to high in several studies, and outcome reporting was inconsistent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current evidence does not allow for definitive conclusions regarding the clinical benefit of pNPWT after APR. While some studies suggest potential advantages, particularly in terms of SSI reduction, results remain inconsistent and device-dependent. Further high-quality randomized trials are required to clarify the role of pNPWT and to define optimal application protocols in this challenging surgical context.</p>","PeriodicalId":51192,"journal":{"name":"Techniques in Coloproctology","volume":"29 1","pages":"168"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12457546/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating negative-pressure wound therapy after abdominoperineal resection: a systematic review of efficacy and technical variability.\",\"authors\":\"A Litchinko, F Ris, B Noiret, M Adamina, Q Denost\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10151-025-03212-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection (APR) for anal or low rectal cancer remain a significant clinical concern, frequently leading to surgical site infections (SSIs), wound dehiscence, and delayed healing. These complications contribute to increased patient morbidity, prolonged hospitalization, and higher healthcare costs. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) has been proposed to improve wound outcomes in this context, but evidence regarding its effectiveness remains inconclusive.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review evaluates the clinical outcomes and technical application of pNPWT in closed perineal wounds following APR, with a focus on its potential impact on SSIs, wound dehiscence, and healing time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies assessing pNPWT after APR. Key outcomes of interest were SSI rates, wound dehiscence, healing time, and length of hospital stay. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The results were heterogeneous: while three studies reported reduced SSI rates with pNPWT compared with conventional wound management, two studies observed higher SSI rates in the pNPWT groups. Variability in device type (canister-based versus portable systems), negative pressure settings, application duration, and patient selection limited the comparability across studies. The risk of bias was moderate to high in several studies, and outcome reporting was inconsistent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current evidence does not allow for definitive conclusions regarding the clinical benefit of pNPWT after APR. While some studies suggest potential advantages, particularly in terms of SSI reduction, results remain inconsistent and device-dependent. Further high-quality randomized trials are required to clarify the role of pNPWT and to define optimal application protocols in this challenging surgical context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Techniques in Coloproctology\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12457546/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Techniques in Coloproctology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-025-03212-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques in Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-025-03212-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:腹会阴切除术(APR)治疗肛门或低位直肠癌后的会阴伤口并发症仍然是一个重要的临床问题,经常导致手术部位感染(ssi),伤口开裂和延迟愈合。这些并发症导致患者发病率增加、住院时间延长和医疗费用增加。在这种情况下,预防性负压伤口治疗(pNPWT)已被提出用于改善伤口结局,但关于其有效性的证据仍不确定。目的:本系统评价pNPWT在APR后会阴闭合性创面中的临床效果和技术应用,重点分析其对ssi、创面裂开和愈合时间的潜在影响。方法:按照PRISMA指南在MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane Library进行系统文献检索。符合条件的研究包括随机对照试验和评估apr后pNPWT的观察性研究。感兴趣的主要结果是SSI率、伤口裂开、愈合时间和住院时间。由于临床和方法的异质性,我们进行了叙事综合。结果:共有8项研究符合纳入标准。结果是异质的:虽然有三项研究报告与传统伤口处理相比,pNPWT降低了SSI发生率,但有两项研究观察到pNPWT组的SSI发生率更高。器械类型(罐式与便携式系统)、负压设置、应用时间和患者选择的可变性限制了研究之间的可比性。在一些研究中,偏倚风险为中等到高,结果报告不一致。结论:目前的证据还不能对apr后pNPWT的临床益处给出明确的结论。虽然一些研究表明了潜在的优势,特别是在减少SSI方面,但结果仍然不一致且依赖于器械。需要进一步的高质量随机试验来阐明pNPWT的作用,并在这一具有挑战性的手术环境中确定最佳应用方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluating negative-pressure wound therapy after abdominoperineal resection: a systematic review of efficacy and technical variability.

Evaluating negative-pressure wound therapy after abdominoperineal resection: a systematic review of efficacy and technical variability.

Evaluating negative-pressure wound therapy after abdominoperineal resection: a systematic review of efficacy and technical variability.

Background: Perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection (APR) for anal or low rectal cancer remain a significant clinical concern, frequently leading to surgical site infections (SSIs), wound dehiscence, and delayed healing. These complications contribute to increased patient morbidity, prolonged hospitalization, and higher healthcare costs. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) has been proposed to improve wound outcomes in this context, but evidence regarding its effectiveness remains inconclusive.

Objective: This systematic review evaluates the clinical outcomes and technical application of pNPWT in closed perineal wounds following APR, with a focus on its potential impact on SSIs, wound dehiscence, and healing time.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies assessing pNPWT after APR. Key outcomes of interest were SSI rates, wound dehiscence, healing time, and length of hospital stay. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was performed.

Results: In total, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The results were heterogeneous: while three studies reported reduced SSI rates with pNPWT compared with conventional wound management, two studies observed higher SSI rates in the pNPWT groups. Variability in device type (canister-based versus portable systems), negative pressure settings, application duration, and patient selection limited the comparability across studies. The risk of bias was moderate to high in several studies, and outcome reporting was inconsistent.

Conclusions: Current evidence does not allow for definitive conclusions regarding the clinical benefit of pNPWT after APR. While some studies suggest potential advantages, particularly in terms of SSI reduction, results remain inconsistent and device-dependent. Further high-quality randomized trials are required to clarify the role of pNPWT and to define optimal application protocols in this challenging surgical context.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Techniques in Coloproctology
Techniques in Coloproctology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
176
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Techniques in Coloproctology is an international journal fully devoted to diagnostic and operative procedures carried out in the management of colorectal diseases. Imaging, clinical physiology, laparoscopy, open abdominal surgery and proctoperineology are the main topics covered by the journal. Reviews, original articles, technical notes and short communications with many detailed illustrations render this publication indispensable for coloproctologists and related specialists. Both surgeons and gastroenterologists are represented on the distinguished Editorial Board, together with pathologists, radiologists and basic scientists from all over the world. The journal is strongly recommended to those who wish to be updated on recent developments in the field, and improve the standards of their work. Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1965 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted. Reports of animal experiments must state that the Principles of Laboratory Animal Care (NIH publication no. 86-23 revised 1985) were followed as were applicable national laws (e.g. the current version of the German Law on the Protection of Animals). The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. Authors will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill such requirements.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信