Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Not yet recruiting
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT06025253 |
Other study ID # |
RCSI-PINTA |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Not yet recruiting |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
December 1, 2023 |
Est. completion date |
December 1, 2026 |
Study information
Verified date |
August 2023 |
Source |
Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
Post-operative wound issues in abdominal surgery have a significant impact on patient
outcomes. This study is taking place to investigate if Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT)
dressings reduces Surgical Site Infections, post surgical complications and improves scar
appearance compared to standard dressings.
Description:
Many factors influence the risk wound complications. Notably, the presence of unreconstructed
proximal occlusive arterial disease is a major influence on stump healing. Patient factors
such as smoking, diabetes, obesity, malnutrition and chronic kidney disease are
non-modifiable, particularly in the short-term setting. However, surgical factors may be
altered in an effort to reduce the risk of wound complications. One option amenable to
alteration is what dressing is applied to the closed incision upon procedure completion. The
type of dressing may influence factors such as bacterial access to the wound, the development
of collections of blood or fluid in the wound or fluid oozing from the wound. Collectively,
these wound factors increase the risk of wound infection. Therefore, dressings which reduce
these factors have the potential to reduce wound breakdown, thereby reducing the burden for
patients and healthcare systems. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) removes excess fluid
from wounds as well as limiting bacterial access.
Negative pressure dressings consistent of an open cell solid foam, placed on top of the
incision and then covered with a semipermeable membrane. A sealed tube connects the foam to a
pump to create a partial vacuum over the wound. This negative pressure leads to a sealed
environment which prevents bacterial migration into the wound while removing blood and serous
exudate. Single-use NPWT systems (such as Smith & Nephew's PICOTM and Acelity's PrevenaTM)
are now widely available. The systems can be applied and left in place for up to seven days.
Prophylactic NPWT in the setting of closed surgical incisions has been widely evaluated. The
most recent Cochrane review analysed data from 62 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 6
economic studies. Data were reported from 13,340 participants, undergoing a wide range of
procedures (gastrointestinal, gynaecological, vascular, orthopaedic and cardiothoracic). The
review was concluded with moderate certainty that prophylactic NPWT reduces SSI but not wound
dehiscence. There was a possibility that prophylactic NPWT reduces mortality although the
confidence intervals include the possibility of harm. Cost effectiveness studies produced
differing results in differing settings with no high-grade evidence of cost efficacy.
However, studies specifically investigating the impact of NPWT on closed incision major LEAs
are scarce.
Early results from a pilot study of prospective, multi-centre, two-arm, randomized controlled
trial comparing NPWT to standard dressings after above knee amputations (AKA) and below-knee
amputations (BKA) reported promising results. In this initial review of 43 patients, NPWT
reduced the wound complication rates at 30 days, with complications noted in 5 of 21 controls
(23.8%) and 1 of 22 (4.5%) in the treatment group (p=0.068). Despite this, the absence of
robust cost effectiveness data to support the routine use of NPWT is of concern. NPWT is
considerably more expensive than traditional dressings (approximately £120-145 versus £4 for
a standard dressing). In addition, the Cochrane reviewers noted that pain and health-related
quality of life were not reported by most of their included RCTs.
Most studies randomised patients at high-risk for wound complications but did not always
define high-risk clearly. Finally, the definition of surgical site infection varied amongst
included studies. In particular, it remains unclear whether NPWT reduces all wound
infections, superficial infections alone or deep infections.
Negative-pressure wound dressings rely on a robust seal around the wound to function. This
can be difficult to achieve on the relatively irregular shape of a major limb amputation
wound. Seal failures often result in dressings changes, substantially increasing associated
costs. Prospective evaluation of wound complications in a trial setting utilising
standardised criteria will generate a robust baseline rate upon which to generate a sample
size calculation for a full trial.
We propose to conduct a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing prophylactic
single-use negative pressure wound therapy with standard dressings in patients with in
patients with a closed incision following major lower extremity amputation in terms of SSI
incidence, wound healing complications and scar appearance, patient quality of life and
financial impact on the patient and healthcare system.