Systematic ReviewResearchInfection ControlWorkflow

Prophylactic negative-pressure dressings reduced surgical-site infection after major abdominal surgery

Medicine (PubMed)Aug 14, 2026

AI-summarized from the linked source. Educational brief, not medical advice.

Brief summary

A meta-analysis of gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic laparotomy studies found fewer surgical-site infections with prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy on closed incisions than with standard dressings.

What NurseJet pulled from the source

Ten studies involving 3,301 patients included six randomized trials and four retrospective studies. Negative-pressure therapy was associated with lower overall, superficial, and deep surgical-site infection, while organ-space infection and wound dehiscence did not differ significantly.

Why this matters for nurses

Wound, perioperative, and medical-surgical nurses assess closed abdominal incisions, maintain dressings, and recognize early infection or device problems. The review supports risk-based prophylactic use without treating the device as a substitute for the broader infection-prevention bundle.

Bedside takeaway

Maintain ordered closed-incision negative-pressure therapy as one part of the abdominal-surgery infection-prevention and surveillance plan.

How This Applies in Practice

Use this when: Caring for a closed gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, or pancreatic laparotomy incision with prophylactic negative-pressure therapy ordered.

On your shift

Document the incision, periwound skin, dressing seal, prescribed settings, canister status, drainage, pain, and device start time at baseline.
Check therapy delivery and skin tolerance at the required interval and preserve the dressing according to the device and postoperative pathway.
Escalate loss of seal or therapy, bleeding, increasing pain, erythema, warmth, drainage, fever, skin injury, or wound separation.

Keep in mind: The pooled studies do not establish use for every incision, and the device does not replace the infection-prevention bundle. Follow the wound protocol, facility policy, and provider orders.

Key takeaways

The review included 10 studies and 3,301 patients, with 900 receiving prophylactic negative-pressure therapy and 2,401 receiving standard dressings.
Overall surgical-site infection was lower with negative-pressure therapy, with a pooled odds ratio of 0.63.
Superficial and deep infections were also lower in pooled analyses.
Organ-space infection and wound dehiscence did not differ significantly between dressing strategies.

Practice implications

For an ordered prophylactic device, document incision and periwound baseline, confirm seal and settings, monitor canister output and skin tolerance, and keep the dressing intact according to protocol. Escalate loss of therapy, bleeding, increasing pain, erythema, drainage, fever, or dehiscence.

Limitations & cautions

The review combined six randomized trials with four retrospective studies, procedures and risk profiles may have varied, and the abstract does not report certainty ratings or detailed subgroup effects. The pooled association did not extend to organ-space infection or wound dehiscence.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations

Exact source links

Open source

Public citations are filtered to exact credible source pages. Homepage-only or invalid links stay in admin review and are not shown here.

Medicine (PubMed)

Medicine (PubMed). Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy reduces surgical site infection in gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic laparotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Open original source

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42601706/

Professional education only

This summary does not replace clinical judgment, facility policy, provider orders, or official guidelines. Verify practice changes against the original source and local protocol.

Related briefs

More updates for this clinical area

Back to Discover

Renal failure (PubMed)Sep 7, 2026Research Article

A single-center retrospective cohort found that approximately one quarter of laboratory-defined acute kidney injury cases on internal medicine wards were not documented, particularly when maximal creatinine was lower.

Med-SurgAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchQuality ImprovementAI summary · original source linked below

Among 161 adult hospitalizations meeting serum-creatinine criteria for acute kidney injury, 39 cases (24.2%) were undocumented. Length of stay and in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly by documentation status.

Key takeaways

In the 149 hospitalizations with a demonstrable creatinine change, 33 cases (22.1%) were undocumented.
Higher maximal creatinine was associated with lower adjusted odds of underdocumentation.
The study did not test whether a detection or documentation intervention improves care or outcomes.

Why this matters on shift

A smaller creatinine rise may receive less attention even when it meets the study's laboratory definition of acute kidney injury, which can affect how renal risk is communicated across the inpatient team.

Bedside takeaway

Trend ordered renal-function results and communicate clinically important changes through local escalation and documentation workflows.

Nursing implications

Trend ordered renal-function results and communicate clinically important changes through the care team according to local escalation and documentation workflows.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. This was a retrospective, single-center study of 161 hospitalizations; urine-output criteria and reliable preadmission creatinine values were unavailable, and the reference creatinine method may affect case classification.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Renal failure (PubMed). Underdocumentation of laboratory-defined acute kidney injury in internal medicine wards: a retrospective cohort study.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

European heart journal (PubMed)Sep 6, 2026Research Article

In the pragmatic TARGET-D randomized trial, vitamin D dosing titrated to a serum target did not significantly reduce the composite of death, recurrent myocardial infarction, heart-failure hospitalization, or stroke after myocardial infarction.

Telemetry Med-SurgAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchMedication SafetyPatient EducationAI summary · original source linked below

Among 630 participants followed for an average of 4.2 years, major cardiovascular events occurred in 15.7% with targeted vitamin D management and 18.4% with usual care (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.24; P=0.40).

Key takeaways

At baseline, 87% of participants had a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of 40 ng/mL or lower.
The primary composite outcome and the individual outcomes of death, heart-failure hospitalization, and stroke were not significantly different.
A lower recurrent-MI rate was a secondary finding and should not override the nonsignificant primary result.

Why this matters on shift

The trial cautions against presenting targeted vitamin D supplementation as a proven strategy for reducing major cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction.

Bedside takeaway

Present vitamin D as prescribed supplementation, not as a replacement for established post-MI secondary prevention.

Nursing implications

Reinforce the prescribed secondary-prevention plan and avoid implying that vitamin D replaces therapies with established post-MI benefit.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. The trial included 630 participants, 78.1% were men, the primary confidence interval included benefit and no benefit, and individual secondary outcomes were not the primary endpoint.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

European heart journal (PubMed). Targeted vitamin D supplementation and major adverse cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction: the TARGET-D trial.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Journal of the American Medical Directors Association (PubMed)Sep 5, 2026Research Article

A prospective Dutch nursing-home cohort found clinically important differences in illness burden across respiratory viruses, with influenza and human metapneumovirus standing out.

Geriatrics Med-SurgAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchInfection ControlAI summary · original source linked below

Among 3,195 residents at 15 nursing homes, 526 suspected acute respiratory-infection episodes were recorded and a virus was identified in 291. Influenza A was associated with delayed recovery, oxygen use, and threefold secondary-bacterial-pneumonia risk; hMPV was linked to fourfold more time in bed.

Key takeaways

SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, rhinovirus or enterovirus, and RSV were the most frequently identified viruses.
hMPV and RSV tended to have higher odds of moderate or severe disease.
Virus-specific patterns were associations from a cohort, not randomized comparisons.

Why this matters on shift

Frailty can amplify respiratory-infection consequences, and the causative virus may help anticipate recovery, oxygen, mobility, and secondary-infection needs.

Bedside takeaway

Trend oxygen needs, mobility, recovery, and secondary-pneumonia signs during nursing-home respiratory infections.

Nursing implications

During outbreaks or suspected infection, trend oxygen needs, mobility and time in bed, recovery, and signs of bacterial pneumonia according to facility protocols.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. Data came from 15 Dutch nursing homes, the overall suspected-infection risk estimate was imprecise, and virus-outcome comparisons may be affected by confounding and small subgroup counts.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Journal of the American Medical Directors Association (PubMed). Clinical Impact of Acute Respiratory Virus Infections in Nursing Home Residents.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

How This Applies in Practice

Key takeaways

Practice implications

Limitations & cautions

Exact source links

More updates for this clinical area

One in four laboratory-defined AKI cases went undocumented on medicine wards

Targeted vitamin D did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events after MI

Influenza and hMPV carried substantial illness burden in nursing home residents