December 09, 2019
1 min read
Save

Similar infection rates found with incisional negative pressure and standard dressings for THA

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

Vineet Tyagi

According to study results, patients who underwent direct-anterior approach total hip arthroplasty and had incisional negative pressure dressings showed a surgical site infection rate that was not significantly different than those treated with standard dressings.

“In our patients, we noted no difference in infections rates after primary anterior THA when patients were treated with Aquacel (Convatec, Bridgewater, New Jersey) or Prevena (Acelity/KCI, San Antonio, Texas),” Vineet Tyagi, MD, told Healio.com/Orthopedics. “The results of the study led us to use the silver-impregnated occlusive dressings as our standard dressing after THA. We believe this would provide significant cost savings over incisional negative pressure dressings.”

Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 275 patients who underwent anterior THA within a 1-year period. Incisional negative pressure dressings (Prevena) were used in 86 patients, while the standard silver-impregnated occlusive dressings (Aquacel) were used in 189 patients. Investigators recorded the rates of surgical site infection. The impact of age, sex, BMI and comorbidities were compared between the two groups. High-risk patients were assessed to determine if incisional negative pressure dressings decreased infections.

Results showed that after primary anterior THA, there was no statistically significant difference in the infection rate overall in patients who were treated with incisional negative pressure dressings compared with those treated with occlusive dressings (2.33% vs. 1.06%). In patients who were high risk, there was no difference in surgical site infections, readmission or reoperation. Investigators noted negative pressure wound therapy was used more often in patients who were high risk compared with those who were not high risk (46.8% vs. 31.6%). – by Monica Jaramillo

 

Disclosures: Tyagi reports no relevant financial disclosures. Please see the study for a list of all other authors’ relevant financial disclosures.