Surgical site occurrences (SSOs) affect up to or over 25% of patients undergoing operative procedures, with the subset of surgical site infections (SSIs) being the most common. Commercially available closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) may offer surgeons an additional option to manage clean, closed surgical incisions. We conducted an extensive literature search for studies describing ciNPT use and assembled a diverse panel of experts to create consensus recommendations for when using ciNPT may be appropriate. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using key words 'prevention', 'negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT)', 'active incisional management', 'incisional vacuum therapy', 'incisional NPWT', 'incisional wound VAC', 'closed incisional NPWT', 'wound infection', and 'SSIs' identified peer-reviewed studies published from 2000 to 2015. During a multidisciplinary consensus meeting, the 12 experts reviewed the literature, presented their own ciNPT experiences, identified risk factors for SSOs and developed comprehensive consensus recommendations. A total of 100 publications satisfied the search requirements for ciNPT use. A majority presented data supporting ciNPT use. Numerous publications reported SSI risk factors, with the most common including obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 ); diabetes mellitus; tobacco use; or prolonged surgical time. We recommend that the surgeon assess the individual patient's risk factors and surgical risks. Surgeons should consider using ciNPT for patients at high risk for developing SSOs or who are undergoing a high-risk procedure or a procedure that would have highly morbid consequences if an SSI occurred.

This study suggests that incisional NPWT following abdominal wall reconstruction significantly improves rates of wound complication and skin dehiscence when compared with conventional dressings. Prospective, randomized, controlled studies are needed to further characterize the potential benefits of this therapy on wound healing after abdominal wall reconstruction.

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that closed incision negative-pressure therapy is a potentially effective method for reducing surgical-site infections. It also appears that closed incision negative-pressure therapy may be associated with a decreased incidence of dehiscence, but the published data available were too heterogeneous to perform meta-analysis.

No abstract

Therapeutic, III.

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) pose a significant surgical complication. Application of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy (ciNPT) has been associated with reduced SSI rates in published literature. This meta-analysis examines the effect of ciNPT use over closed incisions in reducing SSIs versus traditional dressings. Methods: A systematic literature search using PubMed, The Cochrane Library, OVID, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, and QUOSA was performed focusing on publications between January 1, 2005, and April 30, 2018. Characteristics of study participants, surgical procedure, type of dressing used, duration of treatment, incidence of SSI, and length of follow-up were extracted. Weighted odds ratios and 95% CIs were calculated to pool study and control groups in each publication for analysis. Treatment effects were combined using Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios as the summary statistics, and a fixed-effects model was used for each analysis performed. The chi-square test was used to statistically assess heterogeneity. For each meta-analysis performed, the more conservative random-effects models were conducted as sensitivity analyses. Results: For all meta-analyses (randomized controlled trial only, observational studies only, colorectal/abdominal, obstetrics, lower extremity, groin/vascular, cardiac), heterogeneity tests were nonsignificant (P > 0.05). All fixed-effects meta-analyses were significant in favor of ciNPT use over traditional dressings (P < 0.05). When the random-effects analyses were performed, all analyses except obstetrics remained significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: For all meta-analyses performed using the fixed-effects approach, ciNPT usage demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in incidence of SSI relative to traditional dressings.

Introduction Recently, several single center studies have suggested a protective effect of the influenza vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This study utilizes a continuously updated Electronic Medical Record (EMR) network to assess the possible benefits of influenza vaccination mitigating critical adverse outcomes in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients from 56 healthcare organizations (HCOs). Methods The de-identified records of 73,346,583 patients were retrospectively screened. Two cohorts of 37,377 patients, having either received or not received influenza vaccination six months–two weeks prior to SARS-CoV-2 positive diagnosis, were created using Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) and logical observation identifiers names and codes (LOINC) codes. Adverse outcomes within 30, 60, 90, and 120 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis were compared between cohorts. Outcomes were assessed with stringent propensity score matching including age, race, ethnicity, gender, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obesity, heart disease, and lifestyle habits such as smoking. Results SARS-CoV-2-positive patients who received the influenza vaccine experienced decreased sepsis (p<0.01, Risk Ratio: 1.361–1.450, 95% CI:1.123–1.699, NNT:286) and stroke (p<0.02, RR: 1.451–1.580, 95% CI:1.075–2.034, NNT:625) across all time points. ICU admissions were lower in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients receiving the influenza vaccine at 30, 90, and 120 days (p<0.03, RR: 1.174–1.200, 95% CI:1.003–1.385, NNT:435), while approaching significance at 60 days (p = 0.0509, RR: 1.156, 95% CI:0.999–1.338). Patients who received the influenza vaccine experienced fewer DVTs 60–120 days after positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (p<0.02, RR:1.41–1.530, 95% CI:1.082–2.076, NNT:1000) and experienced fewer emergency department (ED) visits 90–120 days post SARS-CoV-2-positive diagnosis (p<0.01, RR:1.204–1.580, 95% CI: 1.050–1.476, NNT:176). Conclusion Our analysis outlines the potential protective effect of influenza vaccination in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients against adverse outcomes within 30, 60, 90, and 120 days of a positive diagnosis. Significant findings favoring influenza vaccination mitigating the risks of sepsis, stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), emergency department (ED) & Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admissions suggest a potential protective effect that could benefit populations without readily available access to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Thus further investigation with future prospective studies is warranted.

The use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is cost-saving following closure of abdominal incisions in high-risk patients.