Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Primary Wound Suturing after Intestinal Ostomy Closure: A...

Objective: Wound infection after intestinal ostomy closure is a very common postoperative complication. An alternative to primary wound suturing by single sutures or purse string sutures (PSS) is applying incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT). The aim of the following systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and compare clinical outcomes in patients after PSS and iNPWT use. Approach: The aim of the study was to find relevant clinical data comparing outcomes of iNPWT and primary wound closure after intestinal ostomy closure. The search was conducted using the MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, SciELO, and Web of Science databases and took place up to November 12, 2022. The authors did not use date or language filters. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020, London, UK). The authors conducted a meta-analysis of the following four parameters: wound healing time (WHT), surgical site infections (SSIs), complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Odds ratios (OR) and inverse variance (IV) were generated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The meta-analysis was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database under registration number CRD42023391640. Results: The analysis revealed that the iNPWT group and the control group did not differ significantly with regard to the WHT parameter (Z = 2,73; p = 0.006; χ² = 0.37, df = 1, p = 0.54, I² = 0%). Meta-analysis of SSI incidence revealed a significant difference favoring the iNPWT group over the observational group (OR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.25-0.72; p = 0.002; I² = 14%). Patients included in the iNPWT group had a significantly lower pooled incidence of overall complications than the observational group (OR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.35-0.77; p = 0.001, I² = 71%). Subgroup analysis limited to randomized studies also presented significant differences favoring the iNPWT group over the observational group (OR = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.14-0.52; p < 0.001, I² = 67%). Our analysis showed that LOS did not differ significantly between the groups treated with and without iNPWT (IV = 0.19; 95% CI = -0.66 -1,04; p = 0.76, I² = 0%). In addition, subgroup analysis of randomized studies also did not present a significant difference (IV = 0.25; 95% CI = -0.80 -1,30; p = 0.33, I² = 10%). Innovation: This study shows that the use of iNPWT can reduce the risk of SSIs with other complications, such as wound hematomas, wound seromas, wound dehiscence, fistulas, and ileus, in patients undergoing intestinal ostomy closure without extended hospital stay. Conclusions: Use of iNPWT can be considered in postoperative care after elective ostomy closure to decrease the rate of the most common complications after ostomy closure.