Effectiveness of prophylactic application of negative pressure wound therapy in stopping surgical site wound problems for closed incisions in breast cancer surgery: A meta‐analysis

We performed a meta‐analysis to evaluate the effect of prophylactic application of negative pressure wound therapy in stopping surgical site wound problems for closed incisions in breast cancer surgery. A systematic literature search up to April 2022 was performed and 2223 women with closed incisions in breast cancer surgery at the baseline of the studies; 964 of them were using the prophylactic application of negative pressure wound therapy, and 1259 were using standard dressings. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effect of prophylactic application of negative pressure wound therapy in stopping surgical site wound problems for closed incisions in breast cancer surgery using the dichotomous method with a random or fixed‐effect model. The prophylactic application of negative pressure wound therapy women had a significantly lower total wound problems (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43‐0.90, P = .01), lower surgical site wound infection (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36‐0.96, P = .03), lower wound dehiscence (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39‐0.75, P < .001) and lower wound necrosis (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27‐0.71, P < .001), in women with closed incisions in breast cancer surgery compared with standard dressings. However, prophylactic application of negative pressure wound therapy did not show any significant difference in wound seroma (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.32‐1.65, P = .45), and hematoma (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.33‐1.59, P = .001) compared with standard dressings in women with closed incisions in breast cancer surgery. The prophylactic application of negative pressure wound therapy women had a significantly lower total wound problems, surgical site wound infection, wound dehiscence, and wound necrosis and no significant difference in wound seroma, and hematoma compared with standard dressings in women with closed incisions in breast cancer surgery. The analysis of outcomes should be with caution because of the low sample size of 5 out of 12 studies in the meta‐analysis and a low number of studies in certain comparisons.