{"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}
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.
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.