The role of perineal application of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy for prevention of wound-related complications after abdomino-perineal resection: a systematic review
verfasst von:
Jeremy Meyer, Elin Roos, Ziad Abbassi, Christian Toso, Frédéric Ris, Nicolas C. Buchs
Closed perineal wounds often fail to heal by primary intention after abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and are often complicated by surgical site infection (SSI) and/or wound dehiscence. Recent evidence showed encouraging results of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) for prevention of wound-related complications in surgery. Our objective was to gather and discuss the early existing literature regarding the use of pNPWT to prevent wound-related complications on perineal wounds after APR.
Methods
Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for original publications and congress abstracts reporting the use of pNPWT after APR on closed perineal wounds.
Results
Seven publications were included for analysis. Two publications reported significantly lower incidence of SSI in pNPWT patients than in controls with a risk reduction of about 25–30%. Two other publications described similar incidences of SSI between the two groups of patients but described SSI in pNPWT patients to be less severe. One study reported significantly lower incidence of wound dehiscence in pNPWT patients than in controls.
Conclusion
The largest non-randomized studies investigating the effect of pNPWT on the prevention of wound-related complications after APR showed encouraging results in terms of reduction of SSI and wound dehiscence that deserve further investigation and confirmation.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
Abdomino-perineal resection (APR) of the rectum consists of the ablation of the terminal colon, the rectum, the internal and external sphincters, and the confection of a terminal colostomy, as initially described by Miles [1]. APR is usually indicated for advanced adenocarcinomas of the lower third of the rectum (within 5 cm from the anal verge) and for recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the rectum or anal margin after chemo-radiotherapy. Improvements to the techniques include neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy for stages T 3–4 and/or radiologically node-positive adenocarcinomas, synchronous abdominal and perineal approaches, total mesorectum excision (TME, as introduced by Heald [2]), and minimally invasive techniques avoiding laparotomy for the abdominal approach.
Recently, emergence of sphincter-sparing procedures, such as partial and total intersphincteric resections for adenocarcinomas < 1 cm from the internal sphincter but sparing the external sphincter allowed reducing the indication for APR in favor of anterior resection. However, APR is still performed for rectal adenocarcinomas extending to the external sphincter, for incontinent patients, and for recurrent squamous cell carcinoma. Further, wider resections, such as extralevator abdomino-perineal excision (ELAPE [3]) removing the totality of levator ani muscles from their origin associated or not to multivisceral resection, are sometimes required in case of infiltration of levator ani muscles or surrounding organs, although indication for ELAPE is still debatable.
Anzeige
APR results in wide perineal defects. Usually, levator ani muscles are reapproximated using absorbable stiches. If a gap remains, the subcutaneous fat in the ischiorectal space or a synthetic or biological mesh can be used to fill the empty space [4]. In some cases, reconstruction using flaps, such as pedicled vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap, local V-to-Y advancement flap (inferior gluteal artery perforator flap), and pedicled gracilis muscle flaps, is required [5, 6].
However, perineal wounds often fail to heal, notably due to preoperative radiotherapy side effects [7, 8], resulting in significant morbidity for patients, prolonged hospitalization, and increased costs for the healthcare system [9]. After failure to heal, a conventional negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) device (usually V.A.C .) is usually put in place to help healing by secondary intention.
Recently, NPWT preventively applied on closed wounds, also named prophylactic NPWT (pNPWT) or incisional NPWT (iNPWT), was reported to lower the risk of SSI after surgery in various surgical specialties, notably in gastrointestinal surgery [10‐12]. Of interest, early publications reported encouraging results after APR, for which surgical wounds are more at risk of complications, but pooled evidence is lacking in that context.
The primary objective of the present systematic review was to gather and discuss the early existing literature regarding the use of pNPWT to prevent wound-related complications, notably SSI, on perineal wounds after APR.
Anzeige
Methods
This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [13] (Table S1). MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 8 November 2019 for original studies written in English, Swedish, or French including patients who benefited from perineal application of pNPWT after APR. Search strategy is summarized in Table 1. Case series and conference abstracts were considered. Additional records were identified by manual search of the reference lists of the included publications. Secondary analyses of previously published papers and studies including patients < 18 years old were excluded. Studies were screened for inclusion by two authors (ER, JM). Discrepancies were solved by a third author (NCB). The systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).
Table 1
Literature search strategy
Database
Search build
Occurrences
MEDLINE
((Negative-pressure[Title/Abstract]) OR (Negative pressure[Title/Abstract]) OR (Negative-pressure therapy[Title/Abstract]) OR (Negative pressure therapy[Title/Abstract]) OR (Negative-pressure wound therapy[Title/Abstract]) OR (Negative pressure wound therapy[Title/Abstract]) OR (Prophylactic closed-incision negative-pressure wound therapy[Title/Abstract]) OR (Prophylactic closed-incision negative pressure wound therapy[Title/Abstract]) OR (NPT[Title/Abstract]) OR (NPWT[Title/Abstract]) OR (pNPT[Title/Abstract]) OR (pNPWT[Title/Abstract]))
AND
((perineal[Title/Abstract]) OR (perineum[Title/Abstract]) OR (abdominoperineal resection[Title/Abstract]) OR (abdomino-perineal resection[Title/Abstract]) OR (abdominoperineal excision[Title/Abstract]) OR (abdomino-perineal excision[Title/Abstract]) OR (APE[Title/Abstract]) OR (APR[Title/Abstract]))
77
EMBASE
('negative-pressure therapy':ti,ab,kw OR 'negative pressure therapy':ti,ab,kw OR 'negative-pressure wound therapy':ti,ab,kw OR 'negative pressure wound therapy':ti,ab,kw OR 'NPWT':ti,ab,kw)
AND
('perineal':ti,ab,kw OR 'perineum':ti,ab,kw OR 'abdominoperineal resection':ti,ab,kw OR 'abdomino-perineal resection':ti,ab,kw OR 'abdominoperineal excision':ti,ab,kw OR 'abdomino-perineal excision':ti,ab,kw OR 'APE':ti,ab,kw OR 'APR':ti,ab,kw)
74
WEB OF SCIENCE
TI = (negative-pressure therapy OR negative pressure therapy OR negative-pressure wound therapy OR negative pressure wound therapy OR NPWT)
ANDTI = (perineal OR perineum OR abdominoperineal resection OR abdomino-perineal resection OR abdominoperineal excision OR abdomino-perineal excision OR APE OR APR)
14
Results
Inclusion process
Seventy-seven publications were identified from MEDLINE, 74 from Embase and 14 from Web of Science. One hundred and fifty-seven records were excluded after abstract/title screening, and one after full-text screening, leaving seven publications [14‐20] for definitive inclusion (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart
×
Characteristics of included studies
Included studies were composed of three congress abstracts [18‐20] and four original publications [14‐17]. All of them were recent, two being published in 2014 [14, 20], one in 2016 [15], two in 2017 [16, 17], and two in 2018 [18, 19]. All of them were cohort studies [14‐20]. Six studies compared perineal wound outcomes between patients with pNPWT and those with conventional wound dressing [14‐16, 18‐20]. Control patients were historical in 3 studies [14‐16] (Table 2).
Table 2
Characteristics of included studies
Authors
Year
Country
Type of publication
Type of study
Period
Chadi et al.
2014
Canada
Original publication
Retrospective cohort
2010–2012
Chung et al.
2014
USA
Congress abstract
Retrospective cohort
May 2009–September 2013
Rather et al.
2018
USA
Congress abstract
Retrospective cohort
-
Sumrien et al.
2016
UK
Original publication
Prospective cohort
November 2012–April 2015
Takahashi et al.
2018
Japan
Congress abstract
Cohort
-
Van der Walk et al.
2017
The Netherlands
Original publication
Prospective cohort with historical controls
January 2015–December 2015
Wiegering et al.
2017
Germany
Original publication
Cohort
-
All studies included patients undergoing APR [14‐20] or pelvic exenteration [14, 17, 18]. Surgical indication was mainly rectal cancer [14‐17], but two studies also included patients suffering from inflammatory bowel disease [14, 16]. Application of biological mesh to close the perineal defect and/or use of drain was poorly documented and varied among studies (Tables 3 and 4). In patients with application of pNPWT on closed perineum, the device used was the PREVENA incision management system (KCI, Acelity, San Antonio, USA) set at − 100 mmHg [17] or for 5 days [20] and the PICO single use negative pressure wound therapy system (Smith & Nephew, Hertfordshire, UK) set at − 80 mmHg for 4–8 days [16] or unknown commercial device set at − 125 mmHg for 5 days [14, 15].
Table 3
Characteristics of included studies in patients without prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy
Authors
n
Indications for surgery
Preoperative treatment
Risk factors for SSI
Antibioprophylaxis
Surgery
Perineal closure
Mesh
Drain
Reconstruction
Follow-up
Chadi et al.
32
Rectal cancer, IBD, anal cancer
Immunosuppression, 4 (13%)
Chemotherapy, 15 (47%)
Radiotherapy, 16 (50%)
Smoking, 12 (38%)
Diabetes, 4 (13%)
Yes
APR, 28 (88%)
APR + proctocolectomy, 4 (13%)
Absorbable stiches for subcutaneous tissue and non-absorbable interrupted stiches for skin
No
No
No
30 days
Chung et al.
24
-
-
-
-
APR, 24 (100%)
-
-
-
-
-
Rather et al.
14
-
-
-
-
APR, 14 (100%)
-
-
-
-
≥ 14 (100
Sumrien et al.
25
Rectal cancer, 25 (100%)
Chemo-radiotherapy, 10 (25%)
-
-
APR, 25 (100
Absorbable stiches for subcutaneous tissue and skin
Biological
Yes
No
30 months (median)
Takahashi et al.
6
-
Chemo-radiotherapy, 6 (100%)
-
-
APR or pelvic exenteration, 6 (100%)
-
-
-
-
47.6-66.8 days (average)
Van der Walk et al.
10
Rectal cancer, 10 (100%)
Chemo-radiotherapy, 2 (20%)
Radiotherapy, 3 (30%)
Smoking, 1 (10%)
Cardiovascular comorbidity, 3 (30%)
Yes
APR, 10 (100%)
Various
Various
Various
Various
-
Wiegering et al.
0
IBD inflammatory bowel disease, APR abdomino-perineal resection, ELAP extralevator abdomino-perineal resection, SSI surgical site infection. Numbers represent the number of patients (and the proportion)
Table 4
Characteristics of included studies in patients with prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy
Authors
n
Indications for surgery
Preoperative treatment
Risk factors for SSI
Antibioprophylaxis
Surgery
Perineal closure
Mesh
Drain
Reconstruction
Follow-up
Chadi et al.
27
Rectal cancer, IBD
Immunosuppression, 6 (22%)
Chemotherapy, 17 (63%)
Radiotherapy, 16 (59%)
Smoking, 16 (59%)
Diabetes, 3 (11%)
Yes
APR, 20 (74%)
APR + proctocolectomy, 4 (15%)
Pelvic exenteration, 3 (11%)
Absorbable stiches for subcutaneous tissue and non-absorbable interrupted stiches for skin
No
No
No
30 days
Chung et al.
22
-
-
-
-
APR, 22 (100%)
-
-
-
-
-
Rather et al.
16
-
-
-
-
APR, 16 (100%)
-
-
-
-
≥ 16 (100
Sumrien et al.
32
Rectal cancer, 32 (100%)
Chemo-radiotherapy, 13 (41%)
-
-
ELAPE, 32 (100%)
Absorbable stiches for subcutaneous tissue and skin
Biological
Yes
No
30 months (median)
Takahashi et al.
5
-
Chemo-radiotherapy, 5 (100%)
-
-
APR or pelvic exenteration, 5 (100%)
-
-
-
-
47.6-66.8 days (average)
Van der Walk et al.
10
Rectal cancer, 10 (100%)
+ IBD, 2 (20%)
Chemo-radiotherapy, 4 (40%)
Smoking, 2 (20%)
Cardiovascular comorbidity, 5 (50%)
Yes
APR, 10 (100%)
Various
Various
Various
Various
-
Wiegering et al.
6
Rectal cancer, 5 (83%)
Rectal NET, 1 (17%)
Chemo-radiotherapy, 6 (100%)
-
-
APR, 5 (83%)
Pelvic exenteration, 1 (17%)
Non-absorbable interrupted stiches
-
-
VRAM flap, 1 (17%)
-
IBD inflammatory bowel disease, APR abdomino-perineal resection, ELAP extralevator abdomino-perineal resection, SSI surgical site infection. Numbers represent the number of patients (and the proportion)
Perineal wound complications
Wiegering et al. reported one wound dehiscence (16.7% of patients) occurring after 8 days and requiring V.A.C. therapy for secondary healing [17].
Chadi et al. compared 27 patients with pNPWT with 32 patients with conventional wound dressing and found pNPWT patients to have significantly less SSI than control patients (14.8% versus 40.6%, p = 0.04). The incidence of intra-abdominal abscess (7.4% versus 3.1%, p = 0.59) or of emergency department visit (0% versus 6.2%, p = 0.18) did not differ between the two groups [14]. Chung et al. also reported significantly lower incidence of SSI among patients with pNPWT than in controls (9.1% versus 41.7%, p = 0.012) [20]. Rather et al., however, found similar incidence of SSI between patients with and without pNPWT (50% versus 64.3%) but described these infectious complications to be “less severe” in pNPWT patients. Noteworthy, 18.8% of pNPWT patients and 50% of control patients required V.A.C. therapy of the perineal wound for secondary healing. One patient who did not benefited from pNPWT required reoperation [19]. Van der Walk et al. reported similar incidences of SSI between pNPWT and control patients (70% versus 60%, p value not communicated). One patient from the conventional wound dressing group required reintervention [16].
Sumrien et al. reported significantly lower incidence of wound dehiscence in pNPWT patients than in controls (40% versus 9.4%, p = 0.01). Takahashi et al. observed a similar trend (0% versus 50%, p value not communicated) (Table 5).
Table 5
Reported perineal wound-related complications
pNPWT
Controls
Authors
Patients, n
SSI, n (%)
Wound dehiscence, n (%)
Intra-abdominal abscess, n (%)
ED visit, n (%)
V.A.C., n (%)
Reoperation, n (%)
Length of stay (days)
Patients, n
SSI, n (%)
Wound dehiscence, n (%)
Intra-abdominal abscess, n (%)
ED visit, n (%)
V.A.C., n (%)
Reoperation, n (%)
Length of stay (days
Chadi et al.
27
4 (14.8%)
-
2 (7.4%)
0 (0%)
-
-
11**
32
13 (40.6%)
-
1 (3.1%)
2 (6.2%)
-
-
8**
Chung et al.
22
2 (9.1%)
-
-
-
-
-
24
10 (41.7%)
-
-
-
-
-
Rather et al.
16
8 (50%)
-
-
0 (0%)
3 (18.8%)
0 (0%)
14
9 (64.3%)
-
-
-
7 (50%)
1 (7.1%)
Sumrien et al.
32
-
3 (9.4%)
-
-
-
-
25
-
10 (40%)
-
-
-
-
Takahashi et al.
5
-
0 (0%)
-
-
-
-
47.6***
6
-
3 (50%)
-
-
-
-
66.8***
Van der Walk et al.
10
7 (70%)
-
-
-
-
0 (0%)
10
6 (60%)*
-
-
-
-
1 (10%)
Wiegering et al.
6
-
1 (16.7%)
-
-
1 (16.7%)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ED emergency department, SSI surgical site infection, V.A.C. negative-pressure wound therapy on an open wound
*Number extracted from the text and not the table
**Median
***Average
Discussion
In the present systematic review, we have included seven studies investigating the effect of pNPWT on the prevention of perineal wound complications after APR.
Anzeige
Two publications reported significantly lower incidence of SSI in pNPWT patients than in controls with a risk reduction of about 25–30% [14, 20], therefore showing encouraging results in favor of perineal pNPWT. Two other publications described similar incidence of SSI between the two groups of patients but described SSI in pNPWT patients to be less severe [19], or the authors believed that pNPWT could accelerate wound healing [16]. Further, one study reported significantly lower incidence of wound dehiscence in pNPWT patients than in controls (40% versus 9.4%, p = 0.01) [15].
We note that these studies were pilot studies, which presented several limitations. These were heterogeneous in designs, patients’ populations (with potential differences in terms of risk factors for wound-related complications), definition of controls (mainly historical), surgical procedures, pNPWT procedures (in terms of device, negative pressure applied, and duration of therapy—of note, several studies reported dysfunction of the device(s) requiring replacement and/or discontinuation of therapy [15, 16]), and reported outcomes (SSI, wound dehiscence, intra-abdominal abscess, emergency department visit, negative-pressure therapy for secondary healing, reoperation) and had small sample sizes, which constitute important limitations to their interpretation and prevent any meta-analysis of the actual literature in the field. However, we note that studies reporting a significant effect of pNPWT on the prevention of SSI and/or wound dehiscence were the studies with the largest sample sizes. Therefore, it might be likely that the absence of a significant effect observed in smaller studies might result from a type II error (lack of statistical power).
We believe that prevention of wound-related complications after APR is of crucial importance. For instance, these complications might increase length of stay with the subsequent risks of thrombo-embolic complications and nosocomial infections in these vulnerable patients and might also postpone administration of adjuvant therapy. We think that perineal application of pNPWT for the prevention of wound-related complications after ARP deserves further investigation, for example, with a large-enough randomized controlled trial, as the existing high incidence of perineal wound complications might allow to obtain important benefits even with a small effect of that therapy.
Conclusion
The largest non-randomized studies investigating the effect of pNPWT on the prevention of wound-related complications after APR show encouraging results in terms of reduction of SSI and wound dehiscence that deserve further investigation and confirmation.
Anzeige
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.
Bis 30. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr nur 199 € zahlen!
Mit e.Med Innere Medizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Innere Medizin, den Premium-Inhalten der internistischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten internistischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.
The role of perineal application of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy for prevention of wound-related complications after abdomino-perineal resection: a systematic review
verfasst von
Jeremy Meyer Elin Roos Ziad Abbassi Christian Toso Frédéric Ris Nicolas C. Buchs
Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.
Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.
