Cargando…

Comparison of negative-pressure incision management system in wound dehiscence: A prospective, randomized, observational study

Wound dehiscence is a significant problem faced by surgeons after major abdominal surgery. In this study, it was aimed to select the best incision management system to keep the incision edges together and prevent wound opening, and infection by protecting the incision. In this study, 60 patients who...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gök, Mehmet Ali, Kafadar, Mehmet Tolga, Yeğen, Serkan Fatih
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Carol Davila University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6814883/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31666831
http://dx.doi.org/10.25122/jml-2019-0033
_version_ 1783463080385052672
author Gök, Mehmet Ali
Kafadar, Mehmet Tolga
Yeğen, Serkan Fatih
author_facet Gök, Mehmet Ali
Kafadar, Mehmet Tolga
Yeğen, Serkan Fatih
author_sort Gök, Mehmet Ali
collection PubMed
description Wound dehiscence is a significant problem faced by surgeons after major abdominal surgery. In this study, it was aimed to select the best incision management system to keep the incision edges together and prevent wound opening, and infection by protecting the incision. In this study, 60 patients who underwent abdominal surgery were evaluated regarding their risk of wound dehiscence. In our clinic, high-risk cases of abdominal surgery are performed, the risk factors being ischemia along the incision line, dirty and contaminated wound, obesity, tension on the suture line, traumatization of the wound site, age at onset (> 65), body mass index (BMI) > 30, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), immunosuppressive drug users. A prospective study protocol was planned after ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status class assignment. Patients were divided into three groups: patients who underwent a postoperative negative-pressure therapy dressing, patients who underwent subcutaneous aspiration drainage, and patients who received standard dressing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the decompensation, surgical site infection, seroma, hospital stay and costs and to evaluate the results in the postoperative period. Sixty patients were randomized (n = 20, for each group). Thirty-one (51%) of the patients were male, and the mean age was 64.3 ± 8.9 (46-85). The mean BMI was 30.45 ± 7.2. There was no statistically significant difference (p≥0.05) between groups in terms of sex, age, and BMI. The ASA score and surgical interventions were similar between the groups. Wound dehiscence rate was 25% (n = 8), 20% (n = 6) and 3% (n = 1) for the Standard Dressing (SD), Aspiration Drainage (AD) and Negative-Pressure (NP) groups, respectively (p <0.017). Duration of hospitalization was 16.45 ± 6.6, 14.3 ± 7.4 and 8.95 ± 2.8 days (p <0.001) for SD, AD and NP groups, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups regarding other variables (p≥0.05 for all variables). Negative-pressure wound treatment is an easy, fast and practical technique which reduces lateral tension and swelling. It provides perfusion support and helps to protect the surgical field against external sources of infection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6814883
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Carol Davila University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68148832019-10-30 Comparison of negative-pressure incision management system in wound dehiscence: A prospective, randomized, observational study Gök, Mehmet Ali Kafadar, Mehmet Tolga Yeğen, Serkan Fatih J Med Life Original Article Wound dehiscence is a significant problem faced by surgeons after major abdominal surgery. In this study, it was aimed to select the best incision management system to keep the incision edges together and prevent wound opening, and infection by protecting the incision. In this study, 60 patients who underwent abdominal surgery were evaluated regarding their risk of wound dehiscence. In our clinic, high-risk cases of abdominal surgery are performed, the risk factors being ischemia along the incision line, dirty and contaminated wound, obesity, tension on the suture line, traumatization of the wound site, age at onset (> 65), body mass index (BMI) > 30, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), immunosuppressive drug users. A prospective study protocol was planned after ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status class assignment. Patients were divided into three groups: patients who underwent a postoperative negative-pressure therapy dressing, patients who underwent subcutaneous aspiration drainage, and patients who received standard dressing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the decompensation, surgical site infection, seroma, hospital stay and costs and to evaluate the results in the postoperative period. Sixty patients were randomized (n = 20, for each group). Thirty-one (51%) of the patients were male, and the mean age was 64.3 ± 8.9 (46-85). The mean BMI was 30.45 ± 7.2. There was no statistically significant difference (p≥0.05) between groups in terms of sex, age, and BMI. The ASA score and surgical interventions were similar between the groups. Wound dehiscence rate was 25% (n = 8), 20% (n = 6) and 3% (n = 1) for the Standard Dressing (SD), Aspiration Drainage (AD) and Negative-Pressure (NP) groups, respectively (p <0.017). Duration of hospitalization was 16.45 ± 6.6, 14.3 ± 7.4 and 8.95 ± 2.8 days (p <0.001) for SD, AD and NP groups, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups regarding other variables (p≥0.05 for all variables). Negative-pressure wound treatment is an easy, fast and practical technique which reduces lateral tension and swelling. It provides perfusion support and helps to protect the surgical field against external sources of infection. Carol Davila University Press 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6814883/ /pubmed/31666831 http://dx.doi.org/10.25122/jml-2019-0033 Text en ©Carol Davila University Press This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Gök, Mehmet Ali
Kafadar, Mehmet Tolga
Yeğen, Serkan Fatih
Comparison of negative-pressure incision management system in wound dehiscence: A prospective, randomized, observational study
title Comparison of negative-pressure incision management system in wound dehiscence: A prospective, randomized, observational study
title_full Comparison of negative-pressure incision management system in wound dehiscence: A prospective, randomized, observational study
title_fullStr Comparison of negative-pressure incision management system in wound dehiscence: A prospective, randomized, observational study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of negative-pressure incision management system in wound dehiscence: A prospective, randomized, observational study
title_short Comparison of negative-pressure incision management system in wound dehiscence: A prospective, randomized, observational study
title_sort comparison of negative-pressure incision management system in wound dehiscence: a prospective, randomized, observational study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6814883/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31666831
http://dx.doi.org/10.25122/jml-2019-0033
work_keys_str_mv AT gokmehmetali comparisonofnegativepressureincisionmanagementsysteminwounddehiscenceaprospectiverandomizedobservationalstudy
AT kafadarmehmettolga comparisonofnegativepressureincisionmanagementsysteminwounddehiscenceaprospectiverandomizedobservationalstudy
AT yegenserkanfatih comparisonofnegativepressureincisionmanagementsysteminwounddehiscenceaprospectiverandomizedobservationalstudy