Login / Register Submit Your Article
cover
Article Menu

Journal Browser
Vol. 3 (2025)
Vol. 2 (2024)
Vol. 1 (2023)
Indexing and Partners

Google scholar

Crossref

cardiovascular anti-inflammatory infection polymers mucoadhesion mucosa Epithelial Diffusion Buccal binding interactions anticancer antibiotic mechanism of action pyrrolizine open appendectomy laparoscopy surgical site infection elderly split-thickness skin conventional therapy
COPE Compliant

Archived in

Open Access Journal Article

A meta-analysis examining the effects of traditional therapy versus negative-pressure therapy on wound infection and graft take rates in skin with split thickness after grafting surgery

by Juliette Louis 1  and  Béatrice Alain 1
1
Jean Minjoz Hospital, 3 Bd Alexandre Fleming, 25000 Besançon, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
IJCMR  2024 2(5):40; https://doi.org/10.61466/ijcmr2050005
Received: 1 July 2024 / Accepted: 25 September 2024 / Published Online: 27 September 2024
View Full-Text
Download PDF

Abstract

Backgrounds

The purpose of the meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the effects of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with conventional therapy (CT) on wound infection and graft take rates in split-thickness skin (STS) after grafting surgery (GS).

Methods

The results of this meta-analysis were analyzed, and the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using dichotomous or contentious random or fixed effect models. For the current meta-analysis, 16 examinations spanning from 2002 to 2023 were included, encompassing 1301 people with STSs after GS.

Results

NPWT had a significantly lower wound infection (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.17-0.48, p<0.001), and higher graft take rate (MD, 8.70; 95% CI, 5.76-11.63, p<0.001) compared to CT in STSs after GS subjects.

Conclusions

The examined data revealed that NPWT had a significantly lower wound infection and a higher graft take rates compared to CT in STSs after GS subjects. However, given that several examinations had a small sample size, consideration should be given to their values.

Keywords: grafting surgery; negative-pressure wound therapy; conventional therapy; split-thickness skin;
Copyright: © 2024 by Louis and Alain. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Share and Cite

ACS Style
Louis, J.; Alain, B. A meta-analysis examining the effects of traditional therapy versus negative-pressure therapy on wound infection and graft take rates in skin with split thickness after grafting surgery. International Journal of Clinical Medical Research, 2024, 2, 40. doi:10.61466/ijcmr2050005
AMA Style
Louis J, Alain B. A meta-analysis examining the effects of traditional therapy versus negative-pressure therapy on wound infection and graft take rates in skin with split thickness after grafting surgery. International Journal of Clinical Medical Research; 2024, 2(5):40. doi:10.61466/ijcmr2050005
Chicago/Turabian Style
Louis, Juliette; Alain, Béatrice 2024. "A meta-analysis examining the effects of traditional therapy versus negative-pressure therapy on wound infection and graft take rates in skin with split thickness after grafting surgery" International Journal of Clinical Medical Research 2, no.5:40. doi:10.61466/ijcmr2050005

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

References

  1. A. Hjort and F. Gottrup Cost of wound treatment to increase significantly in Denmark over the next decade. Journal of wound care 19(5): p. 173-184 (2010).
  2. R. Khan, D. Fick, F. Yao, et al. A comparison of three methods of wound closure following arthroplasty: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume 88(2): p. 238-242 (2006).
  3. S.F.-y. Hsiao, H. Ma, Y.-H. Wang, et al. Occlusive drainage system for split-thickness skin graft: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Burns 43(2): p. 379-387 (2017).
  4. L.C. Argenta and M.J. Morykwas Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: clinical experience. Annals of plastic surgery 38(6): p. 563-577 (1997).
  5. M.J. Morykwas, L.C. Argenta, E.I. Shelton-Brown, et al. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Annals of plastic surgery 38(6): p. 553-562 (1997).
  6. D.H. Song, L.C. Wu, R.F. Lohman, et al. Vacuum assisted closure for the treatment of sternal wounds: the bridge between debridement and definitive closure. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 111(1): p. 92-97 (2003).
  7. L.A. Scherer, S. Shiver, M. Chang, et al. The vacuum assisted closure device: a method of securing skin grafts and improving graft survival. Archives of Surgery 137(8): p. 930-934 (2002).
  8. E. Moisidis, T. Heath, C. Boorer, et al. A prospective, blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial of topical negative pressure use in skin grafting. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 114(4): p. 917-922 (2004).
  9. S. Llanos, S. Danilla, C. Barraza, et al. Effectiveness of negative pressure closure in the integration of split thickness skin grafts: a randomized, double-masked, controlled trial. Annals of surgery 244(5): p. 700 (2006).
  10. E.K. Kim and J.P. Hong Efficacy of negative pressure therapy to enhance take of 1-stage allodermis and a split-thickness graft. Annals of plastic surgery 58(5): p. 536-540 (2007).
  11. P.A. Blume, J.J. Key, P. Thakor, et al. Retrospective evaluation of clinical outcomes in subjects with split‐thickness skin graft: comparing VAC® therapy and conventional therapy in foot and ankle reconstructive surgeries. International wound journal 7(6): p. 480-487 (2010).
  12. K. Petkar, P. Dhanraj, and H. Sreekar Vacuum closure as a skin-graft dressing: a comparison against conventional dressing. European Journal of Plastic Surgery 35: p. 579-584 (2012).
  13. K.T. Lee, J.K. Pyon, S.Y. Lim, et al. Negative‐pressure wound dressings to secure split‐thickness skin grafts in the perineum. International Wound Journal 11(2): p. 223-227 (2014).
  14. F. Zhang, K.-Y. Lv, X.-C. Qiu, et al. Using negative pressure wound therapy on microskin autograft wounds. Journal of Surgical Research 195(1): p. 344-350 (2015).
  15. C.-C. Wu, K.-Y. Chew, C.-C. Chen, et al. Antimicrobial-impregnated dressing combined with negative-pressure wound therapy increases split-thickness skin graft engraftment: a simple effective technique. Advances in skin & wound care 28(1): p. 21-27 (2015).
  16. C.C. Maduba, U.U. Nnadozie, V.I. Modekwe, et al. Split skin graft take in leg ulcers: conventional dressing versus locally adapted negative pressure dressing. Journal of Surgical Research 251: p. 296-302 (2020).
  17. S. Chaisrisawadisuk, W. Tangjatuporn, and A. Chuangsuwanich The The Effect of Gauze-Based, Negative-Pressure Wound Dressing on Skin Graft Survival: A Comparative Study. The Bangkok Medical Journal 16(2): p. 153-153 (2020).
  18. R. Mo, Z. Ma, C. Chen, et al. Short-and long-term efficacy of negative-pressure wound therapy in split-thickness skin grafts: A retrospective study. Annals of Palliative Medicine 10(3): p. 2935-2947 (2021).
  19. X. Cao, Z. Hu, Y. Zhang, et al. Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Improves Take Rate of Skin Graft in Irregular, High-Mobility Areas: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 150(6): p. 1341-1349 (2022).
  20. N. Agrawal Comparative study of outcomes between application of negative pressure wound therapy to split skin graft versus split skin graft immobilized by traditional bolster dressing. International Surgery Journal 10(8): p. 1317-1324 (2023).
  21. S. Baek and J.H. Park Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) after Hybrid Reconstruction of Occipital Pressure Sore Using Local Flap and Skin Graft. Medicina 59(7): p. 1342 (2023).
  22. A. Liberati, D.G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62(10): p. e1-e34 (2009).
  23. J.P. Higgins, S.G. Thompson, J.J. Deeks, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj 327(7414): p. 557-560 (2003).
  24. D.F. Stroup, J.A. Berlin, S.C. Morton, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 283(15): p. 2008-2012 (2000).
  25. A. Gupta, A. Das, K. Majumder, et al. Obesity is Independently Associated With Increased Risk of Hepatocellular Cancer–related Mortality. American journal of clinical oncology 41(9): p. 874-881 (2018).
  26. C. Collaboration RoB 2: A revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Available at (Accessed December 6, 2019): bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized-trials (2020).
  27. S. Sheikhbahaei, T.J. Trahan, J. Xiao, et al. FDG-PET/CT and MRI for evaluation of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. The oncologist 21(8): p. 931-939 (2016).
  28. R.K. Singh A meta-analysis of the impact on gastrectomy versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for early stomach cancer. Int. J. Clin. Med. res. 1(3): p. 88-99 (2023).
  29. C.M. Mouës, M.C. Vos, G.J.C. Van Den Bemd, et al. Bacterial load in relation to vacuum‐assisted closure wound therapy: a prospective randomized trial. Wound repair and regeneration 12(1): p. 11-17 (2004).
  30. E. Yusuf, X. Jordan, M. Clauss, et al. High bacterial load in negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) foams used in the treatment of chronic wounds. Wound repair and regeneration 21(5): p. 677-681 (2013).
  31. M.W.S. Ho, S.N. Rogers, J.S. Brown, et al. Prospective evaluation of a negative pressure dressing system in the management of the fibula free flap donor site: a comparative analysis. JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery 139(10): p. 1048-1053 (2013).