Final results of the PräVAC trial: prevention of wound complications following inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer using epidermal vacuum-assisted wound closure
Standard
Final results of the PräVAC trial: prevention of wound complications following inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer using epidermal vacuum-assisted wound closure. / Schmid, Sebastian C; Seitz, Anna K; Haller, Bernhard; Fritsche, Hans-Martin; Huber, Toni; Burger, Maximilian; Gschwend, Jürgen E; Maurer, Tobias.
in: WORLD J UROL, Jahrgang 39, Nr. 2, 02.2021, S. 613-620.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Final results of the PräVAC trial: prevention of wound complications following inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer using epidermal vacuum-assisted wound closure
AU - Schmid, Sebastian C
AU - Seitz, Anna K
AU - Haller, Bernhard
AU - Fritsche, Hans-Martin
AU - Huber, Toni
AU - Burger, Maximilian
AU - Gschwend, Jürgen E
AU - Maurer, Tobias
PY - 2021/2
Y1 - 2021/2
N2 - PURPOSE: Inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer is associated with a high rate of wound complications. The aim of this trial was to prospectively analyze the effect of an epidermal vacuum wound dressing on lymphorrhea, complications and reintervention in patients with inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, investigator-initiated study in two German university hospitals (2013-2017). Thirty-one patients with penile cancer and indication for bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection were included and randomized to conventional wound care on one side (CONV) versus epidermal vacuum wound dressing (VAC) on the other side.RESULTS: A smaller cumulative drainage fluid volume until day 14 (CDF) compared to contralateral side was observed in 15 patients (CONV) vs. 16 patients (VAC), with a median CDF 230 ml (CONV) vs. 415 ml (VAC) and a median maximum daily fluid volume (MDFV) of 80 ml (CONV) vs. 110 ml (VAC). Median time of indwelling drainage: 7 days (CONV) vs. 8 days (VAC). All grade surgery-related complications were seen in 74% patients (CONV) vs. 74% patients (VAC); grade 3 complications in 3 patients (CONV) vs. 6 patients (VAC). Prolonged hospital stay occurred in 32% patients (CONV) vs. 48% patients (VAC); median hospital stay was 11.5 days. Reintervention due to complications occurred in 45% patients (CONV) vs. 42% patients (VAC).CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, randomized trial we could not observe a significant difference between epidermal vacuum treatment and conventional wound care.
AB - PURPOSE: Inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer is associated with a high rate of wound complications. The aim of this trial was to prospectively analyze the effect of an epidermal vacuum wound dressing on lymphorrhea, complications and reintervention in patients with inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, investigator-initiated study in two German university hospitals (2013-2017). Thirty-one patients with penile cancer and indication for bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection were included and randomized to conventional wound care on one side (CONV) versus epidermal vacuum wound dressing (VAC) on the other side.RESULTS: A smaller cumulative drainage fluid volume until day 14 (CDF) compared to contralateral side was observed in 15 patients (CONV) vs. 16 patients (VAC), with a median CDF 230 ml (CONV) vs. 415 ml (VAC) and a median maximum daily fluid volume (MDFV) of 80 ml (CONV) vs. 110 ml (VAC). Median time of indwelling drainage: 7 days (CONV) vs. 8 days (VAC). All grade surgery-related complications were seen in 74% patients (CONV) vs. 74% patients (VAC); grade 3 complications in 3 patients (CONV) vs. 6 patients (VAC). Prolonged hospital stay occurred in 32% patients (CONV) vs. 48% patients (VAC); median hospital stay was 11.5 days. Reintervention due to complications occurred in 45% patients (CONV) vs. 42% patients (VAC).CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, randomized trial we could not observe a significant difference between epidermal vacuum treatment and conventional wound care.
U2 - 10.1007/s00345-020-03221-z
DO - 10.1007/s00345-020-03221-z
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 32372159
VL - 39
SP - 613
EP - 620
JO - WORLD J UROL
JF - WORLD J UROL
SN - 0724-4983
IS - 2
ER -