Clinical outcomes of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation vs standard negative pressure wound therapy for wounds: A meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with or without instillation has been extensively applied for patients with multiple wound types. Whether NPWT with instillation is superior to NPWT alone is not known. This study aims to compare the efficacy between negative pressure wound therapy with instillation (NPWTi) and standard negative pressure wound therapy for wounds. The authors searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials investigating clinical outcomes of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation vs standard negative pressure wound therapy for wounds. The registration number (protocol) on PROSPERO is CRD42022287178. Eight RCTs involved 564 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included finally. NPWTi showed a significant fewer surgeries and dressing changes (RR and 95% CI, −9.31 [−17.54, −1.08], P < 0.05), and smaller wound area after treatment (RR and 95% CI, −9.31 [−17.54, −1.08], P < 0.05) compared with NPWT. No significant difference was observed on healing rate, time to heal, length of stay, dehiscence, reinfection, reoperation and readmission between NPWTi and NPWT. The addition of instillation to NPWT could improve clinical outcomes regarding the number of surgeries and dressing changes, and wound area after treatment in patients with multiple wound types. However, because of the heterogeneity these conclusions still need to be further validated by more well‐designed RCTs with large sample sizes.