Table 1.
Summary of the three literature search questions. Six of 13 studies addressed two of 3 search questions, one of 13 studies addressed three of 3 search questions
| Study | NPWT versus gauze dressings, fewer infections in NPWT? | NPWT extends time until wound coverage without rate increase? | NPWT decreases flap rate? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bhattacharyya et al. [6] | N/A | No | Yes |
| Blum et al. [7] | Yes 8.4% (14/166) vs 20.6% (13/63) |
N/A | N/A |
| Dedmond et al. [15] | N/A | Yes | Yes |
| Dedmond et al. [16] | N/A | Yes | Yes |
| Hou et al. [29] | N/A | No | Yes |
| Karanas et al. [30] | N/A | Yes | N/A |
| Li et al. [33] | N/A | Yes | N/A |
| Liu et al. [36] | N/A | Yes | N/A |
| Liu et al. [35] | No* 29.5% (23/78) vs 8.0% (2/25) |
Yes | Yes |
| Parrett et al. [45] | Equivalent 15% (8/53) vs 14% (5/35) |
N/A | Yes |
| Rinker et al. [47] | N/A | Yes | N/A |
| Stannard et al. [49] | Yes 5.4% (2/35) vs 28% (7/25) |
N/A | N/A |
| Steiert et al. [50] | N/A | Yes | N/A |
| Total | Four of 13 | 10 of 13 | Six of 13 |
| # of studies supporting NPWT | two of four** | eight of 10 | six of 6 |
NPWT = negative pressure wound therapy; N/A = not available; *a fourfold higher rate of exposed hardware occurred in the NPWT group versus the gauze group, which may correlate with the increased infection rates in the NPWT group; **one of 4 studies reported equivalent data.