Cochrane · systematic review · CD009261
Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure
Norman, G, Shi, C, Goh, EL, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 14.3%Low 4 · 57.1%Moderate 2 · 28.6%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyNegative pressure wound therapy compared with standard dressing for surgical wounds healing by primary closure
Population: adult patients with surgical wounds healing by primary closure
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mortality (proportion of participants dying in each group at Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.78 [0.47, 1.3] | 11 studies · 6384 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Surgical site infection (proportion of participants in each group with SSI; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.73 [0.63, 0.85] | 44 studies · 11403 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Dehiscence (proportion of participants in each group with wound dehiscence; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.97 [0.82, 1.16] | 23 studies · 8724 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Reoperation (proportion of participants in each group requiring reoperation for reasons related to wound; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | no estimate extracted | 18 studies · 6272 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Seroma (proportion of participants in each group with seroma; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.82 [0.65, 1.05] | 15 studies · 5436 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Haematoma (proportion of participants in each group with haematoma; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.79 [0.48, 1.3] | 17 studies · 5909 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Skin blisters (proportion of participants in each group with at least one skin blister; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 3.55 [1.43, 8.77] | 11 studies · 5015 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard dressing for surgical wounds healing by primary closure
Population: adult patients with surgical wounds healing by primary closure
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mortality (proportion of participants dying in each group at Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.86 [0.5, 1.47] | 4 studies · 2107 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Surgical site infection (proportion of participants in each group with SSI; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.66 [0.55, 0.8] | 31 studies · 6204 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Dehiscence (proportion of participants in each group with wound dehiscence; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.88 [0.69, 1.13] | 14 studies · 3809 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Reoperation (proportion of participants in each group requiring reoperation for reasons related to wound; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 1.04 [0.78, 1.41] | 12 studies · 3523 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Seroma (proportion of participants in each group with seroma; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.72 [0.5, 1.05] | 7 studies · 1591 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Haematoma (proportion of participants in each group with haematoma; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.67 [0.28, 1.59] | 9 studies · 1202 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Skin blisters (proportion of participants in each group with at least one skin blister; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 2.64 [0.65, 10.68] | 7 studies · 796 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard dressing for surgical wounds healing by primary closure
Population: adult patients with surgical wounds healing by primary closure
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mortality (proportion of participants dying in each group at Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.86 [0.5, 1.47] | 4 studies · 2107 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Surgical site infection (proportion of participants in each group with SSI; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.66 [0.55, 0.8] | 31 studies · 6204 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Dehiscence (proportion of participants in each group with wound dehiscence; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.88 [0.69, 1.13] | 14 studies · 3809 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Reoperation (proportion of participants in each group requiring reoperation for reasons related to wound; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 1.04 [0.78, 1.41] | 12 studies · 3523 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Seroma (proportion of participants in each group with seroma; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.72 [0.5, 1.05] | 7 studies · 1591 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Haematoma (proportion of participants in each group with haematoma; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.67 [0.28, 1.59] | 9 studies · 1202 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Skin blisters (proportion of participants in each group with at least one skin blister; Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 2.64 [0.65, 10.68] | 7 studies · 796 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard dressing for surgical wounds healing by primary closure
Population: adult patients with surgical wounds healing by primary closure
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mortality Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.63 [0.25, 1.56] | 3 studies · 416 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Surgical site infection Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.67 [0.53, 0.85] | 23 studies · 2547 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Dehiscence Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.8 [0.55, 1.18] | 12 studies · 1507 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Reoperation Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 1.09 [0.73, 1.63] | 6 studies · 1021 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Readmission Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.86 [0.47, 1.57] | 7 studies · 1271 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Seroma ‐ incidence Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 0.67 [0.45, 1] | 6 studies · 568 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Haematoma Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 1.05 [0.32, 3.42] | 6 studies · 831 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Skin blisters Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing | RR 6.64 [3.16, 13.95] | 6 studies · 597 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |