Prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy after cesarean is associated with reduced risk of surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: The objective of the study was to assess the effect of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy on surgical site infections and other wound complications in women after cesarean delivery.

Data sources: We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

Study eligibility criteria: We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy with standard wound dressing for cesarean delivery.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: The primary outcome was surgical site infection after cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes were composite wound complications, wound dehiscence, wound seroma, endometritis, and hospital readmission. Heterogeneity was assessed using Higgin's I². Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects models.

Results: Six randomized controlled trials and 3 cohort studies in high-risk mostly obese women met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Six were full-text articles, 2 published abstracts, and 1 report of trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies were also heterogeneous in the patients included and type of negative-pressure wound therapy device. The risk of surgical site infection was significantly lower with the use of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy compared with standard wound dressing (7 studies: pooled risk ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.66; adjusted risk ratio, -6.0%, 95% confidence interval, -10.0% to -3.0%; number needed to treat, 17, 95% confidence interval, 10-34). There was no evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity (I² = 9.9%) or publication bias (Egger P = .532). Of the secondary outcomes, only composite wound complications were significantly reduced in patients receiving prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy compared with standard dressing (9 studies: pooled risk ratio, 0.68, 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.94).

Conclusion: Studies on the effectiveness of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy at cesarean delivery are heterogeneous but suggest a reduction in surgical site infection and overall wound complications. Larger definitive trials are needed to clarify the clinical utility of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy after cesarean delivery.