Abstract
Abstract
Objective
In this systematic review we aim to compare wound complication rates from Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) to dry sterile surgical dressings in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Methods
A search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library. Eligible studies included those investigating the use of NPWT in primary and revision TKA. Exclusion criteria included studies investigating NPWT not related to primary or revision TKA; studies in which data relating to NPWT was not accessible; missing data; without an available full text, or not well reported. We also excluded studies with poor scientific methodology. All publications were limited to the English language. Abstracts, case reports, conference presentations, and reviews were excluded. Welch independent sample t-test was used for the statistical analysis.
Results
Our review identified 11 studies evaluating 1,414 patients. Of the 1,181 primary TKA patients analysed (NPWT = 416, surgical dressing = 765), the overall wound complication rates in patients receiving NPWT ranged from 0% – 63% (Median 7.30%, SD ± 21.44) This is in comparison to complication rates of 2.8% – 19% (Median 6.50%, SD ± 6.59) in the dry dressing group. The difference in complication rates between the two groups was not statistically significant (p =0.337). In the revision TKA cohort of 279 patients (NPWT group = 128, dry dressing group = 151), the overall wound complication rates in the NPWT group ranged between 6.7% – 12% (Median 9.80%, SD ± 2.32) vs 23.8% – 30% (Median 26.95%, SD ± 2.53) in the dry dressing group. This difference was statistically significant (p<0.001).
Conclusion
NPWT dressing demonstrated statistically significant reduction in wound complication rates when used in revision TKA but not primary TKA when compared to dry sterile dressings. This is probably due to higher wound related risks encountered with revision TKA surgery compared to primary TKA surgery.
Declaration of Interest
(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.
