4.6 Article

Negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional wound care in cancer surgical wounds: A meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials

Journal

INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages 1578-1593

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13756

Keywords

cancer wound; malignant wound; medical care; negative pressure wound therapy; vacuum-assisted closure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reviewed the risks and benefits of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in cancer surgical wounds. The results showed that NPWT can significantly reduce the risk of surgical site infection and seroma, and promote wound healing.
The application of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in cancer surgical wounds is still controversial, despite its promising usage, because of the risks of increased tumorigenesis and metastasis. This study aimed to review the risks and benefits of NPWT in surgical wounds with the underlying malignant disease compared with conventional wound care (CWC). The first outcome was wound complications, divided into surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, hematoma, and wound dehiscence. The secondary outcome was hospital readmission. We performed a separate meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with CI 95%. Thirteen observational studies with 1923 patients and seven RCTs with 1091 patients were included. NPWT group showed significant decrease in the risk of SSI (RR = 0.45) and seroma (RR = 0.61) in observational studies with P value <0.05, as well as RCTs but were not significant (RR = 0.88 and RR = 0.68). Wound dehiscence (RR = 0.74 and RR = 1.15) and hospital readmission (RR = 0.90 and RR = 0.62) showed lower risks in NPWT group but were not significant. Hematoma (RR = 1.08 and RR = 0.87) showed no significant difference. NPWT is not contraindicated in cancer surgical wounds and can be considered a beneficial palliative treatment to promote wound healing.

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