Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing laparotomy who are at high risk for Surgical Site Infections (SSI). In addition to clinical efficacy, the investigators also plan a cost effectiveness analysis to assess the applicability of this relatively high-cost intervention in a domestic healthcare setting.
Background and Introduction Postoperative surgical site infections (SSI) continue to represent a significant challenge across almost all surgical disciplines, despite the widespread implementation of well-established aseptic and preventive measures. Abdominal surgery, in particular, presents an inherently higher risk, considering the nature of the procedures (e.g., surgeries involving bowel resections). For emergency and urgent procedures, the rate of wound infections can reach as high as 30%, according to some literature sources.
Risk Factors for SSI Risk factors can be categorized based on the surgical procedure itself (e.g., acute/elective, bowel resection/non-resection, wound cleanliness), patient characteristics (e.g., diabetes, smoking, peripheral arterial disease, obesity, age, gender), underlying medical conditions (e.g., cancer, immunosuppressed or septic patients), and perioperative management (e.g., surgical duration, transfusion requirements, hypothermia, hyper/hypoglycemia, hypoxia, pharmacological treatments). Many of these factors are modifiable during patient care (e.g., achieving normothermia, ensuring proper asepsis during surgery, maintaining normoglycemia) or preoperatively (e.g., improving nutritional status, correcting anemia, managing chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension, promoting weight reduction). However, in emergency surgeries, there is often insufficient time to address these factors, significantly increasing the risk of SSI.
The Impact of Diabetes Mellitus as an SSI Risk Factor Uncontrolled diabetes is associated with a higher incidence of complications, including wound infections. Factors such as tissue hypoxia (due to diabetic micro- and macroangiopathy and impaired angiogenesis), cellular dysfunction (e.g., abnormal endothelial, macrophage, and neutrophil function), and the formation of glycotoxins (Advanced Glycation End-products or AGEs) due to hyperglycemia impair wound healing. Numerous large-scale meta-analyses have confirmed the association between diabetes and surgical wound infections . Studies across various surgical fields (e.g., cardiac surgery, orthopedics, colorectal surgery) have demonstrated that preoperative (HbA1c) and perioperative (normoglycemia) management of blood glucose levels can significantly reduce the risk of SSI .
ciNPWT (Closed Incisional, Prophylactic NPWT) as a Method for Preventing Surgical Site Infections
Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) was initially developed in the 1990s to treat chronic, difficult-to-heal wounds (Argenta & Morykwas). The mechanism of NPWT involves the application of either continuous or intermittent negative pressure, which increases tissue vascularization, reduces edema, and promotes wound healing by removing necrotic tissue debris and stimulating granulation tissue formation. When applied prophylactically to closed surgical incisions, the available literature supports the significant reduction of septic surgical complications. Based on the results of a previously published multicenter, randomized, prospective clinical trial conducted by the investigators' research team, ciNPWT has been shown to reduce the incidence of SSIs following high-risk, urgent general abdominal surgeries (2). However, in that study, few poorly controlled diabetic patients were included, meaning no conclusions could be drawn specifically regarding this high-risk group. The effectiveness of NPWT has been largely settled in clinical debate, with numerous studies demonstrating its positive impact on wound healing. However, the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic NPWT remains an open question.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| ciNPWT | Experimental | Group of patients being treated with prophylactic NPWT after emergency laparotomy. |
|
| Control | No Intervention | Group of patients being treated with "regular" wound dressing. |
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prophylactic/Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy | Device | Negative Pressure Wound Therapy device used on closed laparotomy wound to prevent SSI. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Incidence of SSI | The ratio of patients developing surgical site infection after emergency laparotomy. Unit of Measure: Number and percentage of patients Measurement Tool : Clinical assessment and medical records | 30 days |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Length of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay | Number of days spent in the Intensive Care Unit following surgery. Unit of Measure: Days Measurement Tool: Hospital medical records | 30 days |
| Length of hospital stay |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:a (all criteria must apply simultaneously):
Exclusion Criteria: (any of the following):
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balázs Bánky | Contact | +36-20-825-8915 | bankybalazs@gmail.com | |
| Andras Herczeg | Contact | +36-20-670-1721 | herczeg.andras.ivan@semmelweis.hu |
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semmelweis University, Department of Surgery, Transplantation and Gastroenterology | Budapest | 1082 | Hungary |
We apply strict regulations for the secure handling of IPD during the study. The data are used solely for the purposes of the research, and sharing them with other researchers could increase privacy risks.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Total number of days of hospitalization following surgery.
Unit of Measure: Days Measurement Tool: Hospital medical records
| 30 days |
| Incidence of abdominal wall dehiscence | Occurrence of abdominal wall dehiscence following surgery. Unit of Measure: Number and percentage of patients Measurement Tool : Clinical assessment and medical records | 30 days |
| Reoperation rate | Proportion of patients requiring at least one reoperation following the index procedure. Unit of Measure: Number and percentage of patients (Yes/No) Measurement Tool: medical records | 30 days |
| Number of reoperations per patient | Total number of reoperations performed per patient during the study period. Unit of Measure: Count Measurement Tool: medical records | 30 days |
| Quality of life assessed by EQ-5D questionnaire | Health-related quality of life assessed using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Unit of Measure: Score Measurement Tool: EQ-5D questionnaire | 30 days |
| Direct healthcare costs | Direct healthcare costs associated with postoperative care and complications. Unit of Measure: Hungarian Forint (HUF) Measurement Tool: Hospital billing and accounting records | 30 days |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D003920 | Diabetes Mellitus |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D044882 | Glucose Metabolism Disorders |
| D008659 | Metabolic Diseases |
| D009750 | Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases |
| D004700 | Endocrine System Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided