背景:据报道,接受动脉介入治疗的患者的血管手术部位感染的总发生率为5-10%,下肢旁路移植术的发生率高达10-20%。鉴于已知血管手术患者术后伤口感染和其他并发症的风险较高,我们的目的是评估减少此类并发症的潜在方法.这项研究比较了腹股沟下切口血管手术患者的切口负压伤口治疗(NPWT)和常规敷料之间的伤口愈合并发症发生率。主要终点是在2周随访时伤口完全闭合。次要终点包括需要抗生素的频繁感染,需要伤口修复,和伤口裂开。
方法:在卡梅尔山卫生系统进行了腹股沟下血管手术治疗外周动脉疾病后,进行了一项前瞻性队列研究,包括回顾性对照组。本研究中包括的患者是在2014年1月至2018年7月期间接受下肢血管手术并初次闭合腹股沟远端切口的患者。包括接受腹股沟下切口并初次闭合的患者。将实验组中具有PrevenaWoundVAC的患者与用常规敷料治疗的回顾性获得的对照臂进行比较。有关伤口愈合和并发症的数据,特别是感染和伤口裂开,已获得。
结果:我们的研究共招募了201例患者:Prevena组64例,对照组137例。在2周的随访中,与对照组相比,Prevena组的开放性伤口数量显著减少(10.9%Prevena对33.6%对照;p=0.0005)。当汇总评估时,与传统敷料相比,Prevena组发生任何并发症的患者数量有统计学显著减少(13例(20.3%)Prevenavs72例(52.6%)对照;p<.0001).
结论:我们的研究结果表明,应考虑使用NPWT作为预防措施,以降低血管手术患者在常规血管手术后发生腹股沟内切口主要闭合的伤口并发症的风险。它的使用对感染风险增加的患者特别有效,尤其是那些BMI血管形成不良的人,吸烟,和糖尿病。这导致抗生素使用的趋势减少,ED访问,再入院,和手术翻修,这意味着医院资源利用率下降,经济负担下降。
BACKGROUND: Vascular surgical site infections have been reported with an overall incidence of 5-10% for patients undergoing arterial interventions and as high as 10-20% for lower-limb bypass grafting procedures. Given that vascular surgery patients are known to be at a higher risk of postoperative wound infections and other complications, our objective was to evaluate a potential method to reduce such complications. This study compares the rate of wound healing complications between incisional negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and conventional dressings in vascular surgery patients with infra-inguinal incisions. The primary endpoint is complete closure of the wound at the 2-week follow-up appointment. Secondary endpoints include frequency infections requiring antibiotics, need for wound revision, and wound dehiscence.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study with retrospective control group was performed following infra-inguinal vascular surgeries for peripheral arterial disease at the Mount Carmel Health System. The patients included in this study were those who underwent a lower-extremity vascular procedure with primary closure of an incision distal to the groin between January 2014 and July 2018. Patients that had received an infra-inguinal incision with primary closure were included. Patients in the experimental group who had a Prevena Wound VAC were compared with a retrospectively obtained control arm treated with conventional dressings. Data regarding wound healing and complications, specifically infections and wound dehiscence, were obtained.
RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were recruited in our study: 64 in the Prevena group and 137 in the control group. There was a significant reduction in the number of open wounds in the Prevena group compared to the control group at the 2-week follow-up (10.9% Prevena vs 33.6% control; p = .0005). When evaluated in aggregate, there was a statistically significant reduction in the number of patients who succumbed to any complication in the Prevena arm compared with traditional dressings (13 (20.3%) Prevena vs 72 (52.6%) control; p < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study suggest there should be a significant consideration for the use of NPWT as a prophylactic measure to reduce the risk of wound complications of primarily closed infra-inguinal incisions in vascular surgery patients following common vascular procedures. Its use is particularly effective for patients at enhanced risk of infection, especially those with poor vascularization from BMI, smoking, and diabetes. This leads to decreased trends in antibiotic use, ED visits, readmissions, and surgical revisions, which translates to decreased utilization of hospital resources and economic burden.