The Journal of arthroplasty · 2015
Closed-Incision Negative-Pressure Therapy Versus Antimicrobial Dressings After Revision Hip and Knee Surgery: A Comparative Study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cooper H John, Bas Marcel A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the efficacy of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy (ciNPT) in decreasing wound complications and surgical site infections (SSIs) after revision hip and knee surgery.
METHODS: A retrospective quality improvement analysis of 138 consecutive revision hip and knee operations performed by a single surgeon over a 34-month period was performed. ciNPT was used selectively in higher-risk patients with multiple risk factors for SSIs over the last 15 months of the study period. Rates of wound complications, SSIs, and reoperation were compared with patients treated with a sterile antimicrobial dressing.
RESULTS: Antimicrobial dressings were used in 108 patients, whereas ciNPT was used in 30 patients. Patients treated with ciNPT developed fewer overall wound complications (6.7% vs 26.9%, P = .024) and fewer total SSIs (3.3% vs 18.5%, P = .045) than patients treated with antimicrobial dressings. In addition, there were trends toward a lower rate of superficial wound dehiscence (6.7% vs 19.4%, P = .163), fewer deep periprosthetic joint infections (0.0% vs 9.3%, P = .118), and fewer reoperations (3.3% vs 13.0%, P = .191) among patients treated with ciNPT.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that ciNPT may decrease wound complications and SSIs in patients undergoing revision hip and knee surgery.
METHODS: A retrospective quality improvement analysis of 138 consecutive revision hip and knee operations performed by a single surgeon over a 34-month period was performed. ciNPT was used selectively in higher-risk patients with multiple risk factors for SSIs over the last 15 months of the study period. Rates of wound complications, SSIs, and reoperation were compared with patients treated with a sterile antimicrobial dressing.
RESULTS: Antimicrobial dressings were used in 108 patients, whereas ciNPT was used in 30 patients. Patients treated with ciNPT developed fewer overall wound complications (6.7% vs 26.9%, P = .024) and fewer total SSIs (3.3% vs 18.5%, P = .045) than patients treated with antimicrobial dressings. In addition, there were trends toward a lower rate of superficial wound dehiscence (6.7% vs 19.4%, P = .163), fewer deep periprosthetic joint infections (0.0% vs 9.3%, P = .118), and fewer reoperations (3.3% vs 13.0%, P = .191) among patients treated with ciNPT.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that ciNPT may decrease wound complications and SSIs in patients undergoing revision hip and knee surgery.