4.6 Article

The impact of incisional negative pressure wound therapy on the wound healing process after midline sternotomy

Journal

INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 95-102

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13497

Keywords

deep sternal wound infections; incisional negative pressure wound therapy; inflammatory biomarkers; proliferation phase; wound healing process

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Incisional negative pressure wound therapy (INPWT) has been shown to reduce wound infections, with a greater impact on scar formation during the proliferation phase rather than the inflammatory phase. The study did not find significant differences in inflammatory biomarkers between the INPWT group and the control group.
Previous studies have reported that the use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy (INPWT) might reduce the incidence of wound infections, although its mechanism remains unknown. We designed a prospective study to explore the effects of INPWT on different stages of the wound healing process. After meeting the inclusion criteria, 108 patients were enrolled. Based on exclusion criteria four patients were excluded and 104 patients were randomised into two groups. INPWT was applied after primary closure of the midline sternotomy in the study group (n = 52), while conventional wound dressing was applied in the control group (n = 52). We documented the incidence of deep sternal wound infections and analysed the pre- and postoperative inflammatory biomarkers and scar size in both groups. No wound infections were observed in the study group compared with six cases (11.1%) in the control group, (P = .026). No significant differences were observed in the inflammatory biomarkers between the groups. Scar size was significantly smaller in the study group. We concluded that INPWT has less effect on the inflammatory phase and appears to have more effect on the proliferation phase through pronounced scar formation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available