Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
Type: Journal article
Title: Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy versus standard dressings in obese women undergoing caesarean section: multicentre parallel group randomised controlled trial
Author: Gillespie, B.M.
Webster, J.
Ellwood, D.
Thalib, L.
Whitty, J.A.
Mahomed, K.
Clifton, V.
Kumar, S.
Wagner, A.
Kang, E.
Chaboyer, W.
Citation: BMJ: British Medical Journal, 2021; 373(8290):n893-1-n893-10
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
Issue Date: 2021
ISSN: 0959-8146
Statement of
Brigid M Gillespie, Joan Webster, David Ellwood, Lukman Thalib, Jennifer A Whitty ... et al.
Abstract: Objective To determine the effectiveness of closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) compared with standard dressings in preventing surgical site infection (SSI) in obese women undergoing caesarean section. Design Multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled, parallel group, superiority trial. Setting Four Australian tertiary hospitals between October 2015 and November 2019. Participants: Eligible women had a pre-pregnancy body mass index of 30 or greater and gave birth by elective or semi-urgent caesarean section. Intervention 2035 consenting women were randomised before the caesarean procedure to closed incision NPWT (n=1017) or standard dressing (n=1018). Allocation was concealed until skin closure. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of SSI. Secondary outcomes included depth of SSI (superficial, deep, or organ/body space), rates of wound complications (dehiscence, haematoma, seroma, bleeding, bruising), length of stay in hospital, and rates of dressing related adverse events. Women and clinicians were not masked, but the outcome assessors and statistician were blinded to treatment allocation. The pre-specified primary intention to treat analysis was based on a conservative assumption of no SSI for a minority of women (n=28) with missing outcome data. Post hoc sensitivity analyses included best case analysis and complete case analysis. Results In the primary intention to treat analysis, SSI occurred in 75 (7.4%) women treated with closed incision NPWT and in 99 (9.7%) women with a standard dressing (risk ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.01; P=0.06). Post hoc sensitivity analyses to explore the effect of missing data found the same direction of effect (closed incision NPWT reducing SSI), with statistical significance. Blistering occurred in 40/996 (4.0%) women who received closed incision NPWT and in 23/983 (2.3%) who received the standard dressing (risk ratio 1.72, 1.04 to 2.85; P=0.03). Conclusion Prophylactic closed incision NPWT for obese women after caesarean section resulted in a 24% reduction in the risk of SSI (3% reduction in absolute risk) compared with standard dressings. This difference was close to statistical significance, but it likely underestimates the effectiveness of closed incision NPWT in this population. The results of the conservative primary analysis, multivariable adjusted model, and post hoc sensitivity analysis need to be considered alongside the growing body of evidence of the benefit of closed incision NPWT and given the number of obese women undergoing caesarean section globally. The decision to use closed incision NPWT must also be weighed against the increases in skin blistering and economic considerations and should be based on shared decision making with patients. Trial registration ANZCTR identifier 12615000286549.
Keywords: Humans
Surgical Wound Infection
Pregnancy Complications
Treatment Outcome
Cesarean Section
Prospective Studies
Double-Blind Method
Middle Aged
Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy
Young Adult
Intention to Treat Analysis
Rights: © 2021 The Authors. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n893
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 4
Medicine publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
hdl_131055.pdf306.21 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.