Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Am J Perinatol
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1775562
Review Article

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Two Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Devices to Manage Cesarean Section Incisions

Theodore Goldman
1   Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwell Health, Huntington, New York
,
Ben Costa
2   Global Clinical and Medical Affairs, Smith + Nephew, Hull, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was funded by Smith & Nephew, Inc.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This paper aims to evaluate whether there is a device-dependent effect on the reduction of surgical site complications in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m2) undergoing cesarean section (C-section). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for the period, January 2011 to September 2021. English language articles describing a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared either a −80 or −125 mm Hg single-use negative pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) device to standard dressings in obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) patients undergoing C-section were included. Conference abstracts and “terminated” RCTs with published results were deemed eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome of interest was surgical site infection (SSI), classified as composite, superficial, or deep. Secondary outcomes assessed included seroma, dehiscence, hematoma, bleeding, reoperation, readmission, blistering, and (composite) wound complications. A total of 223 titles were identified, of which 129 were screened by full-text review. Eleven RCTs encompassing 5,847 patients met the inclusion criteria and were considered eligible for further analysis (−80 mm Hg: six studies; −125 mm Hg: five studies). A statistically significant improvement in the composite SSI (odds ratio [OR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54–0.89) and superficial SSI (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.50–0.86) outcomes was observed with the −80 mm Hg device, compared with standard dressings. The same effect on SSI outcomes was not observed with the −125 mm Hg device (composite SSI—OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.64–1.28; superficial SSI—OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.70–1.78). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the other assessed outcomes. sNPWT devices may differ in their ability to reduce composite or superficial SSI after C-section.

Key Points

  • Negative pressure benefits obese patients undergoing C-section.

  • Negative pressure devices may differ in performance.

  • A head-to-head clinical trial is needed.

Keywords

surgical site infection - obesity - cesarean section - negative pressure wound therapy - meta-analysis - systematic review

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 21 September 2022

Accepted: 17 August 2023

Article published online:
19 September 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gülmezoglu AM. WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. BJOG 2016; 123 (05) 667-670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY. et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet 2018; 392 (10155): 1341-1348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health 2021; 6 (06) e005671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rudey EL, Leal MDC, Rego G. Cesarean section rates in Brazil: trend analysis using the Robson classification system. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99 (17) e19880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Betrán AP, Temmerman M, Kingdon C. et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet 2018; 392 (10155): 1358-1368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kawakita T, Reddy UM, Landy HJ, Iqbal SN, Huang CC, Grantz KL. Indications for primary cesarean delivery relative to body mass index. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215 (04) 515.e1-515.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Driscoll AK, Gregory ECW. Increases in prepregnancy obesity: United States, 2016–2019. NCHS Data Brief 2020; (392) 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Smid MC, Smiley SG, Schulkin J, Stamilio DM, Edwards RK, Stuebe AM. The Problem of the Pannus: Physician Preference Survey and a Review of the Literature on Cesarean Skin Incision in Morbidly Obese Women. Am J Perinatol 2016; 33 (05) 463-472
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Martin J, Gastanaduy M, Nakahara A. et al. Association of skin incision type with postoperative cesarean delivery complications in morbidly obese patients. Obstet Gynecol 2022; 139 (01) 14-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shea SK, Soper DE. Prevention of cesarean delivery surgical site infections. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2019; 74 (02) 99-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wloch C, Wilson J, Lamagni T, Harrington P, Charlett A, Sheridan E. Risk factors for surgical site infection following caesarean section in England: results from a multicentre cohort study. BJOG 2012; 119 (11) 1324-1333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Anderson V, Chaboyer W, Gillespie B. The relationship between obesity and surgical site infections in women undergoing caesarean sections: an integrative review. Midwifery 2013; 29 (12) 1331-1338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Marchi J, Berg M, Dencker A, Olander EK, Begley C. Risks associated with obesity in pregnancy, for the mother and baby: a systematic review of reviews. Obes Rev 2015; 16 (08) 621-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Moulton LJ, Eric Jelovsek J, Lachiewicz M, Chagin K, Goje O. A model to predict risk of postpartum infection after caesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 31 (18) 2409-2417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Saadia Z. Association between maternal obesity and cesarean delivery complications. Cureus 2020; 12 (03) e7163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Conner SN, Verticchio JC, Tuuli MG, Odibo AO, Macones GA, Cahill AG. Maternal obesity and risk of postcesarean wound complications. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31 (04) 299-304
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ayres-de-Campos D. Obesity and the challenges of caesarean delivery: prevention and management of wound complications. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2015; 29 (03) 406-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Zaki MN, Truong M, Pyra M, Kominiarek MA, Irwin T. Wound complications in obese women after cesarean: a comparison of staples versus subcuticular suture. J Perinatol 2016; 36 (10) 819-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Searle RJ, Myers D. A survey of caesarean section surgical site infections with PICO™ Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System in high-risk patients in England and Ireland. J Hosp Infect 2017; 97 (02) 122-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Malmsjö M, Huddleston E, Martin R. Biological effects of a disposable, canisterless negative pressure wound therapy system. Eplasty 2014; 14: e15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Yu L, Kronen RJ, Simon LE, Stoll CRT, Colditz GA, Tuuli MG. Prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy after cesarean is associated with reduced risk of surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218 (02) 200-210.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Singh DP, Gabriel A, Silverman RP, Griffin LP, McGowan LD, D'Agostino Jr RB. Meta-analysis comparing outcomes of two different negative pressure therapy systems in closed incision management. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (06) e2259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hudson DA, Adams KG, Van Huyssteen A, Martin R, Huddleston EM. Simplified negative pressure wound therapy: clinical evaluation of an ultraportable, no-canister system. Int Wound J 2015; 12 (02) 195-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Saunders C, Nherera LM, Horner A, Trueman P. Single-use negative-pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressings for closed surgical incisions: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. BJS Open 2021; 5 (01) zraa003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hussamy DJ, Wortman AC, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ, Casey BM, Roberts SW. Closed incision negative pressure therapy in morbidly obese women undergoing cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 134 (04) 781-789
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gunatilake RP, Swamy GK, Brancazio LR. et al. Closed-incision negative-pressure therapy in obese patients undergoing cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. AJP Rep 2017; 7 (03) e151-e157
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gillespie BM, Thalib L, Ellwood D. et al. Effect of negative-pressure wound therapy on wound complications in obese women after caesarean birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2022; 129 (02) 196-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Guo C, Cheng T, Li J. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy on surgical site infection in obese women after cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2021; 158 (03) 502-511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Angarita AM, Jayakumaran J, Di Mascio D, Berghella V. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy on wound complications after cesarean delivery in women with obesity: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2022; 4 (03) 100617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372 (71) n71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Akers J. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, United Kingdom: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: an R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst Rev 2022; 18 (02) e1230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Stitely M. Prevention of wound complications after cesarean delivery in obese women utilizing negative pressure wound therapy. Accessed June 9, 2023 at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00654641
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Chaboyer W, Anderson V, Webster J, Sneddon A, Thalib L, Gillespie BM. Negative pressure wound therapy on surgical site infections in women undergoing elective caesarean sections: a pilot RCT. Healthcare (Basel) 2014; 2 (04) 417-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gillespie BM, Webster J, Ellwood D. et al. Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy versus standard dressings in obese women undergoing caesarean section: multicentre parallel group randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2021; 373 (893) n893
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Gonzalez MG, Elisa Barske M, Kjellsson KB, Saboda K, Hill MG. Topical negative pressure wound therapy to prevent wound complications following cesarean delivery in high risk obstetric patients. Reprod Sci 2020; 27 (01) 136A-137A
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hyldig N, Vinter CA, Kruse M. et al. Prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy reduces the risk of surgical site infection after caesarean section in obese women: a pragmatic randomised clinical trial. BJOG 2019; 126 (05) 628-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Peterson AT, Bakaysa SL, Driscoll JM, Kalyanaraman R, House MD. Randomized controlled trial of single-use negative-pressure wound therapy dressings in morbidly obese patients undergoing cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2021; 3 (05) 100410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Tuuli MG, Martin S, Stout MJ. et al. 412: Pilot randomized trial of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy in obese women after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216 (1, Supplement): S245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Ruhstaller K, Downes KL, Chandrasekaran S, Srinivas S, Durnwald C. Prophylactic wound vacuum therapy after cesarean section to prevent wound complications in the obese population: a randomized controlled trial (the ProVac Study). Am J Perinatol 2017; 34 (11) 1125-1130
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Tuuli MG, Liu J, Tita ATN. et al. Effect of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy vs standard wound dressing on surgical-site infection in obese women after cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2020; 324 (12) 1180-1189 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.13361.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Wihbey KA, Joyce EM, Spalding ZT. et al. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy and wound complication after cesarean delivery in women with Class II or III obesity: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132 (02) 377-384 DOI: 10.1097/aog.0000000000002744.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Huang HP, Zhao WJ, Pu J, He F. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy for surgical site infection in obese women undergoing cesarean section: an evidence synthesis with trial sequential analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2021; 34 (15) 2498-2505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Ferraro F, Piselli P, Pittalis S. et al; Centro di Riferimento per le Infezioni associate alle Pratiche Assistenziali Latium Region Group. Surgical site infection after caesarean section: space for post-discharge surveillance improvements and reliable comparisons. New Microbiol 2016; 39 (02) 134-138
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Brownhill VR, Huddleston E, Bell A. et al. Pre-clinical assessment of single-use negative pressure wound therapy during in vivo porcine wound healing. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 2021; 10 (07) 345-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Wilkinson HN, Longhorne FL, Roberts ER, Brownhill VR, Hardman MJ. Cellular benefits of single-use negative pressure wound therapy demonstrated in a novel ex vivo human skin wound model. Wound Repair Regen 2021; 29 (02) 298-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Dessy LA, Serratore F, Corrias F, Parisi P, Mazzocchi M, Carlesimo B. Retention of polyurethane foam fragments during VAC therapy: a complication to be considered. Int Wound J 2015; 12 (02) 132-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Mazoch M, Montgomery C. Retained wound vacuum foam in non-healing wounds: a real possibility. J Wound Care 2015; 24 (06) S18-S20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Wloch C, Van Hoek AJ, Green N. et al. Cost-benefit analysis of surveillance for surgical site infection following caesarean section. BMJ Open 2020; 10 (07) e036919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Bullough L, Burns S, Timmons J, Truman P, Megginson S. Reducing C-section wound complications. Clin Serv J 2015; ; (April): 2-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Blumenfeld YJ, El-Sayed YY, Lyell DJ, Nelson LM, Butwick AJ. Risk factors for prolonged postpartum length of stay following cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol 2015; 32 (09) 825-832
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Zuarez-Easton S, Zafran N, Garmi G, Salim R. Postcesarean wound infection: prevalence, impact, prevention, and management challenges. Int J Womens Health 2017; 9: 81-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Olsen MA, Butler AM, Willers DM, Gross GA, Hamilton BH, Fraser VJ. Attributable costs of surgical site infection and endometritis after low transverse cesarean delivery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010; 31 (03) 276-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Strauss A. Obesity in pregnant women: maternal, fetal, and transgenerational consequences. Eur J Clin Nutr 2021; 75 (12) 1681-1683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Heslehurst N, Simpson H, Ells LJ. et al. The impact of maternal BMI status on pregnancy outcomes with immediate short-term obstetric resource implications: a meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2008; 9 (06) 635-683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). PICO negative pressure wound dressings for closed surgical incisions: Medical technologies guidance [MTG43]. Accessed June 9, 2023 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mtg43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Prevena incision management system for closed surgical incisions: Medtech innovation briefing [MIB173]. Accessed June 9, 2023 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/advice/mib173
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Nherera LM, Saunders C, Verma S, Trueman P, Fatoye F. Single-use negative pressure wound therapy reduces costs in closed surgical incisions: UK and US economic evaluation. J Wound Care 2021; 30 (Sup5): S23-S31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Leth RA, Uldbjerg N, Nørgaard M, Møller JK, Thomsen RW. Obesity, diabetes, and the risk of infections diagnosed in hospital and post-discharge infections after cesarean section: a prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011; 90 (05) 501-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar