Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard care for incisional laparotomy subcutaneous wounds in...

Surgical site infections after gastrointestinal perforation with peritonitis have significant morbidity, increased hospital stays, and cost of treatment. The appropriate management of these wounds is still debatable.

Patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal perforation with peritonitis via midline incision were screened for inclusion. After the closure of the midline fascia, patients were randomized into an open negative pressure wound therapy group (application of negative pressure wound therapy and attempted delayed closure at day 4) or a standard care group (no negative pressure wound therapy and attempted delayed closure at day 4). Postoperative outcomes, including surgical site infection till 30 days, were compared between the groups. This was assessed by an independent assessor not involved in the study for delayed closure. Although a priori sample size was calculated, an interim analysis was performed due to slow recruitment during the COVID pandemic. After interim analysis, a continuation of the trial was deemed unethical and terminated.

Ninety-six patients were assessed, and 69 were randomized (34 in the negative pressure wound therapy group and 31 in the standard care group). The age, body mass index, comorbidities, blood loss, operative time, and stoma formation were comparable. The surgical site infection was significantly lower in the negative pressure wound therapy group compared to the standard care group (6 [18%] vs 19 [61%], P < .01). The number needed to prevent 1 surgical site infection was 2.3. In a subgroup analysis, the use of negative pressure wound therapy also significantly decreased the rate of surgical site infection in stoma patients (4 [30.7%] vs 9 [69.3%], P = .03).

Open negative pressure wound therapy significantly decreases the incisional surgical site infection rate in patients with a dirty wound secondary to gastrointestinal perforation with peritonitis.