Cargando…

Final results of the PräVAC trial: prevention of wound complications following inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer using epidermal vacuum-assisted wound closure

PURPOSE: Inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer is associated with a high rate of wound complications. The aim of this trial was to prospectively analyze the effect of an epidermal vacuum wound dressing on lymphorrhea, complications and reintervention in patients with inguinal lymphadenectomy for...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schmid, Sebastian C., Seitz, Anna K., Haller, Bernhard, Fritsche, Hans-Martin, Huber, Toni, Burger, Maximilian, Gschwend, Jürgen E., Maurer, Tobias
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7910363/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32372159
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03221-z
_version_ 1783656106155835392
author Schmid, Sebastian C.
Seitz, Anna K.
Haller, Bernhard
Fritsche, Hans-Martin
Huber, Toni
Burger, Maximilian
Gschwend, Jürgen E.
Maurer, Tobias
author_facet Schmid, Sebastian C.
Seitz, Anna K.
Haller, Bernhard
Fritsche, Hans-Martin
Huber, Toni
Burger, Maximilian
Gschwend, Jürgen E.
Maurer, Tobias
author_sort Schmid, Sebastian C.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer is associated with a high rate of wound complications. The aim of this trial was to prospectively analyze the effect of an epidermal vacuum wound dressing on lymphorrhea, complications and reintervention in patients with inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, investigator-initiated study in two German university hospitals (2013–2017). Thirty-one patients with penile cancer and indication for bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection were included and randomized to conventional wound care on one side (CONV) versus epidermal vacuum wound dressing (VAC) on the other side. RESULTS: A smaller cumulative drainage fluid volume until day 14 (CDF) compared to contralateral side was observed in 15 patients (CONV) vs. 16 patients (VAC), with a median CDF 230 ml (CONV) vs. 415 ml (VAC) and a median maximum daily fluid volume (MDFV) of 80 ml (CONV) vs. 110 ml (VAC). Median time of indwelling drainage: 7 days (CONV) vs. 8 days (VAC). All grade surgery-related complications were seen in 74% patients (CONV) vs. 74% patients (VAC); grade 3 complications in 3 patients (CONV) vs. 6 patients (VAC). Prolonged hospital stay occurred in 32% patients (CONV) vs. 48% patients (VAC); median hospital stay was 11.5 days. Reintervention due to complications occurred in 45% patients (CONV) vs. 42% patients (VAC). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, randomized trial we could not observe a significant difference between epidermal vacuum treatment and conventional wound care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7910363
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79103632021-03-15 Final results of the PräVAC trial: prevention of wound complications following inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer using epidermal vacuum-assisted wound closure Schmid, Sebastian C. Seitz, Anna K. Haller, Bernhard Fritsche, Hans-Martin Huber, Toni Burger, Maximilian Gschwend, Jürgen E. Maurer, Tobias World J Urol Original Article PURPOSE: Inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer is associated with a high rate of wound complications. The aim of this trial was to prospectively analyze the effect of an epidermal vacuum wound dressing on lymphorrhea, complications and reintervention in patients with inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, investigator-initiated study in two German university hospitals (2013–2017). Thirty-one patients with penile cancer and indication for bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection were included and randomized to conventional wound care on one side (CONV) versus epidermal vacuum wound dressing (VAC) on the other side. RESULTS: A smaller cumulative drainage fluid volume until day 14 (CDF) compared to contralateral side was observed in 15 patients (CONV) vs. 16 patients (VAC), with a median CDF 230 ml (CONV) vs. 415 ml (VAC) and a median maximum daily fluid volume (MDFV) of 80 ml (CONV) vs. 110 ml (VAC). Median time of indwelling drainage: 7 days (CONV) vs. 8 days (VAC). All grade surgery-related complications were seen in 74% patients (CONV) vs. 74% patients (VAC); grade 3 complications in 3 patients (CONV) vs. 6 patients (VAC). Prolonged hospital stay occurred in 32% patients (CONV) vs. 48% patients (VAC); median hospital stay was 11.5 days. Reintervention due to complications occurred in 45% patients (CONV) vs. 42% patients (VAC). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, randomized trial we could not observe a significant difference between epidermal vacuum treatment and conventional wound care. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-05-05 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7910363/ /pubmed/32372159 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03221-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Article
Schmid, Sebastian C.
Seitz, Anna K.
Haller, Bernhard
Fritsche, Hans-Martin
Huber, Toni
Burger, Maximilian
Gschwend, Jürgen E.
Maurer, Tobias
Final results of the PräVAC trial: prevention of wound complications following inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer using epidermal vacuum-assisted wound closure
title Final results of the PräVAC trial: prevention of wound complications following inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer using epidermal vacuum-assisted wound closure
title_full Final results of the PräVAC trial: prevention of wound complications following inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer using epidermal vacuum-assisted wound closure
title_fullStr Final results of the PräVAC trial: prevention of wound complications following inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer using epidermal vacuum-assisted wound closure
title_full_unstemmed Final results of the PräVAC trial: prevention of wound complications following inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer using epidermal vacuum-assisted wound closure
title_short Final results of the PräVAC trial: prevention of wound complications following inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer using epidermal vacuum-assisted wound closure
title_sort final results of the prävac trial: prevention of wound complications following inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer using epidermal vacuum-assisted wound closure
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7910363/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32372159
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03221-z
work_keys_str_mv AT schmidsebastianc finalresultsofthepravactrialpreventionofwoundcomplicationsfollowinginguinallymphnodedissectioninpatientswithpenilecancerusingepidermalvacuumassistedwoundclosure
AT seitzannak finalresultsofthepravactrialpreventionofwoundcomplicationsfollowinginguinallymphnodedissectioninpatientswithpenilecancerusingepidermalvacuumassistedwoundclosure
AT hallerbernhard finalresultsofthepravactrialpreventionofwoundcomplicationsfollowinginguinallymphnodedissectioninpatientswithpenilecancerusingepidermalvacuumassistedwoundclosure
AT fritschehansmartin finalresultsofthepravactrialpreventionofwoundcomplicationsfollowinginguinallymphnodedissectioninpatientswithpenilecancerusingepidermalvacuumassistedwoundclosure
AT hubertoni finalresultsofthepravactrialpreventionofwoundcomplicationsfollowinginguinallymphnodedissectioninpatientswithpenilecancerusingepidermalvacuumassistedwoundclosure
AT burgermaximilian finalresultsofthepravactrialpreventionofwoundcomplicationsfollowinginguinallymphnodedissectioninpatientswithpenilecancerusingepidermalvacuumassistedwoundclosure
AT gschwendjurgene finalresultsofthepravactrialpreventionofwoundcomplicationsfollowinginguinallymphnodedissectioninpatientswithpenilecancerusingepidermalvacuumassistedwoundclosure
AT maurertobias finalresultsofthepravactrialpreventionofwoundcomplicationsfollowinginguinallymphnodedissectioninpatientswithpenilecancerusingepidermalvacuumassistedwoundclosure