• About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Login
    • ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
About Us Contact Us Login ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
Grand Rounds

RCT Results: Closed Incision Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Standard Dressing Among Women with Obesity Undergoing Cesarean

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

  • There is insufficient high-quality evidence regarding closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) dressings for reducing SSI in women with obesity
    • Many studies are industry-funded
  • Gillespie et al. (BMJ, 2021) compared the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic closed incision NPWT vs standard surgical dressings for prevention of SSI in women with obesity undergoing cesarean

METHODS:

  • Multicenter, pragmatic, randomized, controlled, parallel group, superiority trial
  • Participants
    • Pre-pregnancy BMI ≥30
    • Elective or semi-urgent caesarean (all categories of cesarean except those cases where there is urgent threat to the mother or fetus)
  • Intervention
    • Closed incision NPWT
    • Standard dressing
  • Study design
    • Randomization prior to cesarean | Emergent cases were not included due to concern regarding obtaining consent
    • Women and clinicians were not masked | Outcome assessors and statistician were blinded to treatment allocation
    • Intention to treat analysis
  • Power analysis
    • 5% reduction in SSI considered clinically significant
    • 90% power and 5% significance level
    • 1045 per group required assuming 10% ‘lost to follow up’ rate  
  • Primary outcome
    • Cumulative incidence of SSI 30 days after surgery
  • Secondary outcomes
    • Depth of SSI: Superficial | Deep | Organ/body space
    • Rates of wound complications
      • Dehiscence | Hematoma | Seroma | Bleeding | Bruising
    • Length of hospital stay
    • Rates of dressing related adverse events

RESULTS:

  • Closed incision NPWT: 1017 women | Standard dressing: 1018 women
  • There was no significant difference in the incidence of SSI between the intervention groups
    • Closed incision NPWT: 7.4%
    • Standard dressing: 9.7%
    • Risk ratio 0.76 (95% CI, 0.57 to 1.01); P = 0.06
  • Post hoc analyses to explore the effect of missing data found the same direction of effect (closed incision NPWT reducing SSI), as well as statistical significance
  • Blistering occurred in more women who received closed incision NPWT
    • Closed incision NPWT: 4.0%
    • Standard dressing: 2.3%
    • Risk ratio 1.72 (95% CI, 1.04 to 2.85); P = 0.03

CONCLUSION:

  • While there was a 3% absolute risk reduction for SSI using closed incision NPWT, the result was not statistically significant  
  • Women who received closed incision NPWT were more likely to experience skin blistering
  • Limitations include
    • Exclusion of emergent cesareans which would include women at high risk for SSI
    • Lower than expected cumulative SSI incidence, which could lead to a false negative result (type II error)
  • The authors conclude

This difference, although close to statistical significance, possibly underestimates the effectiveness of closed incision NPWT in this population

On balance, the results of the conservative primary, multivariable adjusted model, and post hoc sensitivity analyses should be considered alongside the growing body of evidence of the benefits of closed incision NPWT and given the number of obese women undergoing caesarean section globally

Learn More – Primary Sources:

Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy versus standard dressings in obese women undergoing caesarean section: multicentre parallel group randomised controlled trial

Want to stay on top of key guidelines and research papers?

ObGFirst® – Try It Free! »

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite
< Previous
All Grand Rounds Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

Cochrane Review Update: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy and Infection Risk
Does Prophylactic Negative-Pressure Decrease Cesarean Section Wound Infections?
Is Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Obesity-Related Cesarean Wound Infection Cost-Effective? 

Sections

  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • Grand Rounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media

Are you an
ObG Insider?

Get specially curated clinical summaries delivered to your inbox every week for free

  • Site Map/
  • © ObG Project/
  • Terms and Conditions/
  • Privacy/
  • Contact Us/
© ObG Project
SSL Certificate


  • Already an ObGFirst Member?
    Welcome back

    Log In

    Want to sign up?
    Get guideline notifications
    CME Included

    Sign Up

Get Guideline Alerts Direct to Your Phone
Try ObGFirst Free!

Sign In

Lost your password?

Sign Up for ObGFirst and Stay Ahead

  • - Professional guideline notifications
  • - Daily summary of a clinically relevant
    research paper
  • - Includes 1 hour of CME every month

ObGFirst Free Trial

Already a Member of ObGFirst®?

Please log in to ObGFirst to access the 2T US Atlas

Password Trouble?

Not an ObGFirst® Member Yet?

  • - Access 2T US Atlas
  • - Guideline notifications
  • - Daily research paper summaries
  • - And lots more!
ObGFirst Free Trial

Media - Internet

Computer System Requirements

OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.

The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.

Disclaimer

Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.

Jointly provided by

NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS

It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan

Subscribe

JOIN OBGFIRST AND GET CME/CE CREDITS

One of the benefits of an ObGFirst subscription is the ability to earn CME/CE credits from the ObG entries you read. Tap the button to learn more about ObGFirst

Learn More
Leaving ObG Website

You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site