Closed-Incision Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: Which Patients Truly Benefit?

Introduction

Surgical wound complications remain a major source of postoperative morbidity despite advances in surgical techniques, perioperative care, and infection prevention strategies. Complications such as surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, seroma formation, hematoma development, delayed wound healing, and prolonged incisional drainage continue to adversely affect patient outcomes across a wide range of surgical specialties. These events are associated with increased postoperative pain, prolonged antibiotic exposure, delayed rehabilitation, higher rates of hospital readmission, additional surgical interventions, implant failure, extended hospital stays, and substantial healthcare costs. The clinical and economic consequences are particularly severe when wound complications occur following procedures involving implanted materials, including prosthetic joint replacements, vascular grafts, cardiac surgery involving median sternotomy, abdominal wall reconstruction with mesh, and other operations where infection or wound failure can compromise critical surgical outcomes.

The pathogenesis of postoperative wound complications is multifactorial and involves a complex interplay between patient related factors, procedural characteristics, and local wound biology. Comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, smoking, malnutrition, immunosuppression, and peripheral vascular disease can impair tissue perfusion, reduce immune function, and compromise wound healing. Procedure related factors including prolonged operative time, notable tissue dissection, dead space formation, contamination risk, and the presence of foreign materials further increase the likelihood of wound related adverse events. Given the substantial burden associated with these complications, considerable effort has been directed toward identifying effective preventive strategies that can enhance wound healing and reduce postoperative morbidity.

Negative pressure wound therapy was initially developed as a treatment modality for open wounds, where controlled subatmospheric pressure was used to promote granulation tissue formation, reduce edema, improve perfusion, and facilitate wound closure. Over time, clinicians recognized that the biological mechanisms underlying negative pressure therapy might also benefit surgically closed incisions. This observation led to the development of closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT), a prophylactic approach designed specifically for primarily closed surgical wounds.

In the ciNPWT setting, the surgical incision is closed according to standard operative techniques and subsequently covered with a specialized sealed dressing connected to a portable negative pressure device. The system applies continuous or intermittent subatmospheric pressure across the closed incision, typically for several days following surgery. The proposed mechanisms of action are multifaceted and include stabilization of wound edges, reduction of lateral tension across the incision, removal of excess fluid from the wound environment, reduction of seroma and hematoma formation, enhancement of lymphatic drainage, and protection from external contamination. Additionally, negative pressure may improve local tissue perfusion and modulate the inflammatory response, thereby creating a more favorable environment for wound healing.

The biological rationale supporting ciNPWT is well established and supported by both experimental and clinical studies. However, the central question facing surgeons and healthcare systems is not whether the technology has physiological plausibility but rather which patients derive sufficient clinical benefit to justify its routine use. The application of ciNPWT involves additional costs, device management requirements, potential skin related complications, and resource utilization. Therefore, determining the appropriate patient population for this intervention remains a critical issue in evidence based surgical practice.

Accumulating clinical evidence suggests that the benefits of ciNPWT are most pronounced among patients at elevated risk for postoperative wound complications. High risk populations include individuals with obesity, poorly controlled diabetes, smoking history, immunosuppression, previous wound complications, or those undergoing complex reconstructive procedures. Similarly, procedures associated with a high consequence of wound failure, such as total joint arthroplasty, vascular surgery, cardiac surgery, major abdominal wall reconstruction, and trauma surgery, may derive greater benefit from prophylactic negative pressure therapy. In these settings, even modest reductions in infection rates or wound complications can translate into substantial improvements in patient outcomes and healthcare resource utilization.

Meta analyses and randomized controlled trials have reported reductions in surgical site infections, wound dehiscence, seroma formation, and other wound related complications in selected high risk populations. However, results have not been uniformly consistent across all surgical disciplines and patient groups. Variability in study design, patient selection criteria, device characteristics, and outcome definitions has contributed to heterogeneity in reported findings. Consequently, many professional societies and clinical guidelines advocate a selective rather than universal approach to ciNPWT implementation.

For patients undergoing low risk procedures with clean incisions and minimal comorbidity burden, the incremental benefit of ciNPWT appears limited. In such cases, standard postoperative wound care often provides excellent outcomes without the added expense and complexity associated with negative pressure systems. Conversely, for patients with multiple risk factors or those undergoing procedures in which wound complications could have devastating consequences, ciNPWT may offer meaningful clinical advantages and represent a cost effective preventive strategy.

As the evidence base continues to evolve, future research should focus on refining patient selection criteria, identifying procedure specific indications, evaluating long term cost effectiveness, and establishing standardized protocols for device application and duration of therapy. Advances in wound monitoring technologies and precision medicine approaches may further improve the ability to identify patients most likely to benefit from prophylactic negative pressure therapy.

In summary, closed incision negative pressure wound therapy represents an important innovation in postoperative wound management. While its biological rationale and clinical potential are well supported, current evidence favors a targeted approach focused on patients at elevated risk of wound complications rather than routine application across all surgical populations. Careful patient selection remains essential to maximizing clinical benefit, optimizing resource utilization, and improving postoperative outcomes in modern surgical practice.

Terminology

The literature uses several overlapping terms:

• Closed-incision negative pressure wound therapy.
• ciNPWT.
• Incisional negative pressure wound therapy.
• iNPWT.
• Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy.
• Single-use negative pressure wound therapy.

For clarity, this article uses ciNPWT to refer to negative pressure therapy applied to a closed, primarily approximated surgical incision. This is different from NPWT used for open wounds, infected wounds, tissue defects, dehiscence, or wounds healing by secondary intention.

Mechanisms of Action

ciNPWT is thought to work through several complementary mechanisms.

Incision stabilization

The dressing may reduce lateral tension across the incision and limit shear forces during movement. This may be particularly relevant in high-motion areas, obese patients with large pannus tension, sternotomy incisions, groin incisions, and orthopedic incisions under soft-tissue stress.

Fluid management

By removing fluid from the closed-incision environment, ciNPWT may reduce seroma, hematoma, and edema. Reduced fluid accumulation may lower tension and decrease the substrate for bacterial proliferation.

Barrier protection

A sealed dressing can protect the incision from external contamination. This may be useful in high-risk hospital environments or in procedures where wound contamination risk is elevated.

Microenvironment control

ciNPWT maintains a closed, controlled, moist healing environment. It may reduce edema and improve local perfusion indirectly, although claims about improved oxygenation, bacterial reduction, or angiogenesis should be framed cautiously because direct clinical proof varies by model and procedure.

The mechanism is plausible, but mechanism alone does not justify routine use. Clinical benefit depends on whether these effects reduce meaningful outcomes such as SSI, dehiscence, drainage, reoperation, or readmission.

Summary of Current Evidence

The evidence base for ciNPWT is heterogeneous. Trials differ by procedure, device, duration of therapy, baseline SSI risk, closure technique, antibiotic protocols, patient selection, and outcome definition. Meta-analyses often show reduced SSI or wound complications overall, but large pragmatic randomized trials in specific populations have sometimes been neutral.

A 2024 NICE evidence review of PICO negative pressure dressings found that updated meta-analysis results still favored reduced surgical-site infection rates compared with standard care, while also acknowledging heterogeneity across included studies and surgical indications.

Colorectal surgery guidance from ASCRS states that NPWT for primarily closed incisions may decrease SSI, but the recommendation is conditional and based on moderate-quality evidence. This appropriately reflects a field where benefit is plausible and often supported, but not uniform enough for indiscriminate use.

The practical interpretation is:

ciNPWT is a useful risk-reduction tool for selected high-risk closed incisions, but not a universal replacement for standard dressings.

Evidence by Surgical Population

Cardiothoracic surgery

Cardiac surgery, especially median sternotomy, is one of the more biologically plausible settings for ciNPWT. Deep sternal wound infection is uncommon but serious, and risk rises with obesity, diabetes, reoperation, prolonged operative time, bilateral internal mammary artery use, and poor tissue perfusion.

Studies in high-risk sternotomy populations have suggested reduced wound complications, particularly in obese patients. The most defensible use is not routine application after every sternotomy, but targeted use in patients with elevated risk for sternal wound complications.

Clinical interpretation: ciNPWT may be considered after sternotomy in patients with obesity, diabetes, high-tension closure, reoperation, bilateral internal mammary artery harvest, or institutional sternal wound infection concerns.

Colorectal and abdominal surgery

Abdominal surgery data are mixed. Colorectal and contaminated abdominal procedures have higher baseline SSI risk, which improves the potential value of ciNPWT. However, not every trial shows benefit. ASCRS 2024 guidance appropriately gives a conditional recommendation that NPWT for primarily closed incisions may reduce SSI.

Open colon surgery database studies have suggested lower superficial SSI in selected patients, but observational data are vulnerable to selection bias and should not replace randomized trial evidence.

Clinical interpretation: ciNPWT is reasonable to consider after high-risk colorectal or abdominal procedures, especially when multiple patient risk factors coexist with contaminated or high-tension incisions, but routine use across all abdominal incisions is not established.

Emergency laparotomy

Emergency laparotomy patients have high baseline SSI risk, making this a tempting indication. However, the SUNRRISE randomized clinical trial found no statistically significant difference in 30-day SSI between incisional NPWT and surgeon’s choice of wound dressing after emergency laparotomy with primary skin closure. The trial included 840 adults and reported SSI rates of 28.4% with iNPWT versus 27.4% with standard dressing, not supporting routine use in this population.

Clinical interpretation: emergency laparotomy alone should not automatically trigger ciNPWT. Use should be individualized based on additional risk factors, local SSI rates, closure characteristics, contamination, and institutional experience.

Cesarean delivery

The cesarean literature requires careful interpretation. Earlier smaller studies and some meta-analyses suggested possible benefit in obese women. However, the largest pragmatic randomized clinical trial, involving 1,608 obese women undergoing cesarean delivery, found no remarkable reduction in SSI with prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard dressing. SSI occurred in 3.6% versus 3.4%, respectively.

Clinical interpretation: obesity alone is not enough to justify routine ciNPWT after cesarean delivery. Use may still be considered in selected patients with multiple risk factors or high institutional SSI rates, but routine application in all obese cesarean patients is not supported by the largest trial.

Orthopedic surgery

Orthopedic applications are most plausible when infection consequences are high or soft-tissue risk is elevated. Examples include revision arthroplasty, periprosthetic fracture surgery, high-risk fracture fixation, obese patients, diabetes, incisions with high tension, prolonged drainage risk, or compromised soft tissue envelopes.

Routine ciNPWT after uncomplicated primary arthroplasty is less clearly supported. The benefit is more defensible in higher-risk orthopedic trauma, revision procedures, and incisions around implants where infection consequences are substantial.

Clinical interpretation: ciNPWT is best reserved for high-risk orthopedic incisions rather than routine use after all primary joint replacements.

Vascular surgery

Vascular groin incisions are often high risk because of lymphatic disruption, proximity to skin folds, obesity, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, prosthetic grafts, and impaired perfusion. Infection involving vascular graft material can be catastrophic.

Clinical interpretation: ciNPWT is often reasonable for high-risk vascular groin incisions, especially when prosthetic material is present or patient risk factors cluster.

Oncology and reconstructive surgery

Oncology patients may have prior radiation, malnutrition, immunosuppression, chemotherapy exposure, large dead space, or complex closures. Reconstructive incisions may be under high tension or involve compromised tissue.

Clinical interpretation: ciNPWT may be considered when tissue quality is poor, closure tension is high, or wound complications would compromise oncologic or reconstructive outcomes. Evidence is procedure-specific and should be interpreted cautiously.

Patient Selection: Who Truly Benefits?

The best candidates are not identified by a single risk factor. Instead, ciNPWT is most defensible when patient risk, procedure risk, and consequence of complication align.

Patient-level risk factors

Risk factor	Practical interpretation
Diabetes	Supports ciNPWT consideration when combined with high-risk procedure, poor glycemic control, obesity, or implant/graft risk
Obesity	Important risk factor, but not sufficient alone in every procedure
Smoking	Consider if combined with tissue/perfusion risk; cessation remains more important
Malnutrition	Raises wound risk; optimize nutrition when possible
Steroid or immunosuppressive therapy	May support ciNPWT in high-risk incisions
Peripheral vascular disease	Particularly relevant in lower-extremity and groin incisions
Edema or lymphedema	Increases drainage and tension risk
Prior radiation	Suggests compromised tissue healing
Frailty	More meaningful than chronological age alone
History of prior SSI or wound dehiscence	Strong practical risk marker

Procedure-level risk factors

Surgical feature	Why it matters
High-tension closure	ciNPWT may help stabilize wound edges
Large dead space	Fluid management may be helpful
High-motion incision	Shear reduction may matter
Prosthetic material, mesh, graft, or implant	Infection consequences are high
Contaminated or clean-contaminated field	Baseline SSI risk is higher
Prolonged operative time	SSI risk rises with duration
Reoperation or revision surgery	Tissue planes and perfusion may be compromised
Pannus or skin-fold location	Moisture and tension increase wound risk

Institutional factors

Local SSI rates matter. A hospital with a high baseline SSI rate for a particular procedure may see more value from ciNPWT than an institution with very low rates and optimized bundles. ciNPWT should be part of a quality-improvement strategy, not a substitute for surgical technique, antibiotic timing, glycemic control, normothermia, or sterile practice.

Practical Patient Selection Matrix

Risk category	Example	Suggested approach
Low-risk patient + low-risk clean incision	Healthy patient, short clean procedure, low-tension incision	Standard dressing usually appropriate
Single moderate risk factor	Obesity alone or diabetes alone in otherwise low-risk clean surgery	Optimize modifiable risk factors; ciNPWT usually not routine
Multiple patient risk factors	Diabetes + obesity + smoking or edema	Consider ciNPWT if procedure risk is moderate/high
High-risk incision	Sternotomy, vascular groin, revision arthroplasty, contaminated abdominal incision	ciNPWT often reasonable when patient risk is elevated
High-consequence infection	Prosthetic joint, vascular graft, mesh, cardiac hardware	Lower threshold for ciNPWT if wound risk is elevated
Neutral trial population	Obese cesarean delivery alone; emergency laparotomy alone	Do not apply routinely; individualize
Non-closed or infected wound	Open wound, dehiscence, untreated infection	Not prophylactic ciNPWT; manage as open/infected wound

Contraindications and Situations Requiring Caution

ciNPWT is intended for closed, primarily approximated incisions. It should not be used to compensate for inadequate debridement, poor source control, or a wound that should remain open.

Avoid or reconsider ciNPWT when:

• The incision is not fully closed or primarily approximated.
• There is untreated active infection requiring drainage or debridement.
• There is ongoing bleeding or an expanding hematoma.
• Necrotic tissue is present.
• The patient has severe adhesive allergy.
• Skin is extremely fragile and at high risk for blistering or stripping.
• The dressing seal cannot be maintained.
• The patient cannot manage the device or obtain follow-up.
• The device interferes with needed monitoring or access.

Anticoagulation alone is not a standard contraindication. However, active bleeding, hematoma risk, or fragile skin should prompt caution.

Complications and Limitations

ciNPWT is generally well tolerated, but adverse events occur.

Potential complications include:

• Skin blistering.
• Contact dermatitis.
• Adhesive-related skin stripping.
• Pain or discomfort.
• Device alarms or loss of seal.
• Fluid collection if therapy fails.
• Mobility inconvenience.
• Patient anxiety or confusion about device management.

Skin complications are more likely with fragile skin, poor application technique, excessive tension on adhesive, edema, or prolonged wear beyond device recommendations. Staff training and careful removal are essential.

Cost-Effectiveness

ciNPWT is most likely to be cost-effective when the baseline risk of wound complication is high and the consequences of infection are expensive or clinically severe. Routine use in low-risk incisions is less likely to provide value.

Cost-effectiveness improves when ciNPWT prevents:

• Readmission.
• Reoperation.
• Drainage procedures.
• Long-term antibiotics.
• Wound clinic visits.
• Implant or graft infection.
• Prolonged home health care.
• Delayed adjuvant therapy in oncology patients.

Device costs vary by country, hospital contract, device type, and duration. The SUNRRISE trial noted that single-use incisional dressings add material cost, and its neutral findings after emergency laparotomy argue against routine use in that population.

A practical cost principle is:

The higher the baseline SSI risk and the greater the consequence of infection, the more reasonable ciNPWT becomes.

Comparison With Alternative Strategies

ciNPWT should complement—not replace—standard SSI prevention.

Standard prevention measures remain essential

• Appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis.
• Correct antibiotic timing and redosing.
• Glycemic control.
• Normothermia.
• Smoking cessation when feasible.
• Nutrition optimization.
• Skin preparation.
• Gentle tissue handling.
• Hemostasis.
• Dead-space management.
• Appropriate closure technique.
• Postoperative wound surveillance.

Other dressing strategies

Advanced antimicrobial dressings, silver dressings, absorbent dressings, and standard occlusive dressings may be appropriate depending on incision risk, drainage, and institutional protocols. For some moderate-risk patients, these less expensive alternatives may be reasonable.

ciNPWT should be reserved for situations where active fluid management, incision stabilization, and sealed negative pressure plausibly add meaningful benefit.

Implementation Strategy

Successful ciNPWT programs require more than purchasing devices.

Protocol elements

A useful institutional protocol should define:

• Eligible procedures.
• Patient risk factors.
• Exclusion criteria.
• Device type.
• Duration of therapy.
• Who applies the dressing.
• Who removes the dressing.
• Follow-up plan.
• Complication response.
• Documentation requirements.
• Outcome monitoring.

Staff training

Nurses, surgeons, residents, advanced practice clinicians, and wound-care teams should understand:

• Proper patient selection.
• Dressing application.
• Seal troubleshooting.
• Skin protection.
• Alarm management.
• Patient education.
• Safe dressing removal.

Patient education

Patients should receive clear instructions on:

• How long the device should remain in place.
• What alarms mean.
• How to protect the device during mobility.
• Whether showering is allowed.
• When to call the care team.
• Warning signs: fever, increasing pain, redness, swelling, drainage, device failure, bleeding, or skin blistering.

Duration of Therapy

Most single-use ciNPWT systems are applied for approximately 5–7 days, depending on the device, incision, procedure, and institutional protocol. Some studies have used shorter or longer durations. Therapy should be discontinued earlier if there is skin injury, device failure that cannot be corrected, intolerance, bleeding concern, or evidence that the incision requires direct evaluation.

Quality Improvement and Outcome Monitoring

Hospitals using ciNPWT should track outcomes to ensure that the intervention is helping the intended population.

Key metrics include:

• SSI rate by procedure.
• Superficial versus deep SSI.
• Dehiscence.
• Seroma or hematoma.
• Readmission.
• Reoperation.
• Antibiotic use.
• Wound clinic visits.
• Device complications.
• Skin injury.
• Patient satisfaction.
• Cost per complication avoided.

Outcome review should compare ciNPWT patients with similar-risk historical or concurrent controls when possible. If local data show no reduction in complications, selection criteria should be revised.

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Why it matters
Using ciNPWT on every incision	Low-value care in low-risk patients
Using obesity alone as a universal trigger	Large cesarean trial did not support routine use in obese women
Applying ciNPWT to infected or open wounds as if prophylactic	Requires different wound-management strategy
Ignoring closure technique	Device cannot overcome poor surgical technique
Failing to protect fragile skin	Increases blistering and adhesive injury
Not tracking outcomes	Program may continue despite no local benefit
Treating ciNPWT as a substitute for SSI bundles	Antibiotics, glycemic control, and sterile practice remain essential
Leaving the device in place despite worsening pain, redness, drainage, or fever	May delay diagnosis of infection or hematoma

Future Research Directions

Future studies should focus on patient-level and procedure-level risk stratification rather than broad “all-comers” surgical populations. The most important research questions include:

• Which combinations of risk factors predict benefit?
• Which procedures have the most favorable number needed to treat?
• Does ciNPWT reduce deep SSI or mainly superficial SSI?
• Which patients experience skin injury or intolerance?
• What duration is optimal for each procedure?
• Which devices are most cost-effective?
• Does ciNPWT reduce readmission, reoperation, implant infection, or delayed adjuvant therapy?
• Can risk calculators identify patients most likely to benefit?

Large pragmatic trials, procedure-specific registries, and cost-effectiveness analyses using real-world data will be especially valuable.

Practical Clinical Recommendations

1. Use closed-incision negative pressure wound therapy terminology and distinguish it from open-wound NPWT.
2. Do not apply ciNPWT routinely to all surgical incisions.
3. Consider ciNPWT when multiple patient risk factors overlap with a high-risk or high-consequence incision.
4. Do not use obesity or diabetes alone as automatic indications across all procedures.
5. Be cautious in cesarean delivery and emergency laparotomy populations because large trials do not support routine use.
6. Use ciNPWT only on closed, primarily approximated incisions.
7. Avoid ciNPWT when infection, dehiscence, active bleeding, or necrotic tissue requires another management strategy.
8. Monitor skin integrity and device function.
9. Track institutional outcomes to refine selection criteria.
10. Continue standard SSI-prevention bundles regardless of dressing choice.

 

Frequently Asked Questions

What is ciNPWT?

Closed-incision negative pressure wound therapy is a sealed dressing system applied over a closed surgical incision that delivers controlled negative pressure for several days.

Is ciNPWT the same as wound VAC therapy?

It uses a similar negative pressure principle, but ciNPWT is applied over a closed incision. Traditional NPWT is often used for open wounds, tissue defects, infected wounds, or wounds healing by secondary intention.

Should ciNPWT be used on every surgical incision?

No. Evidence supports selective use in higher-risk incisions, not routine use for all patients.

Does obesity alone justify ciNPWT?

Not always. Obesity increases wound risk, but the largest RCT in obese women after cesarean delivery did not show a significant SSI reduction. Obesity should be considered alongside other risk factors and the specific procedure.

Does diabetes justify ciNPWT?

Diabetes increases wound-complication risk, but it should not be an automatic indication by itself. ciNPWT is most defensible when diabetes coexists with poor glycemic control, obesity, high-risk incision, prosthetic material, or local SSI concerns.

How long is ciNPWT usually used?

Most single-use systems are used for about 5–7 days, depending on device instructions and local protocol.

Can patients shower with ciNPWT?

Some devices allow limited showering, but immersion is usually avoided. Patients should follow manufacturer and clinician instructions.

When should ciNPWT be stopped early?

It should be stopped if there is marked skin injury, allergic reaction, device failure, bleeding concern, worsening pain, fever, spreading redness, purulent drainage, or need for direct wound evaluation.

Can ciNPWT be used on an infected incision?

Prophylactic ciNPWT is intended for closed, clean or appropriately managed incisions. Infected, open, or dehisced wounds require wound-specific management and should not be treated as routine prophylactic closed incisions.

References

Ailaney, N., Johns, W. L., Golladay, G. J., Kates, S. L., & Deren, M. E. (2021). Cost-effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions: A systematic review. Wound Repair and Regeneration, 29(1), 44–53.

American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. (2024). Preventing surgical site infection. ASCRS Toolkit.

Atherton, K., Rowlands, N., Magill, L., Mehta, S., Pinkney, T., & SUNRRISE Trial Study Group. (2025). Negative pressure dressings to prevent surgical site infection after emergency laparotomy: The SUNRRISE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. Advance online publication.

Badia, J. M., & colleagues. (2025). Closed-incision negative-pressure therapy: Scoping review of current evidence and clinical application. Journal of Clinical Medicine. Advance online publication.

Blackham, A. U., Farrah, J. P., McCoy, T. P., Schmidt, B. S., & Shen, P. (2013). Prevention of surgical site infections in high-risk patients with laparotomy incisions using negative-pressure therapy. American Journal of Surgery, 205(6), 647–654.

Cooper, H. J., Roc, G. C., Bas, M. A., Berliner, Z. P., Hepinstall, M. S., Rodriguez, J. A., & Macaulay, W. (2021). Closed incision negative pressure therapy decreases complications after periprosthetic fracture surgery around the hip and knee. Injury, 52(4), 1047–1052.

Grauhan, O., Navasardyan, A., Hofmann, M., Müller, P., Stein, J., & Hetzer, R. (2013). Prevention of poststernotomy wound infections in obese patients by negative pressure wound therapy. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 145(5), 1387–1392.

Hyldig, N., Birke-Sørensen, H., Kruse, M., Vinter, C., Joergensen, J. S., Sørensen, J. A., & Bille, C. (2019). Meta-analysis of negative-pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions. British Journal of Surgery, 106(4), 319–329.

Mankarious, M. M., Eng, N. L., Portolese, A. C., Deutsch, M. J., Lynn, P., Kulaylat, A. S., & Scow, J. S. (2024). Closed-incision negative-pressure wound therapy reduces superficial surgical site infections after open colon surgery: An NSQIP colectomy study. Journal of Hospital Infection. Advance online publication.

Morykwas, M. J., Argenta, L. C., Shelton-Brown, E. I., & McGuirt, W. (1997). Vacuum-assisted closure: A new method for wound control and treatment. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 38(6), 553–562.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2024). PICO negative pressure wound dressings for closed surgical incisions: Review decision February 2024. NICE.

Norman, G., Shi, C., Goh, E. L., Murphy, E. M., Reid, A., Chiverton, L., Stankiewicz, M., & Dumville, J. C. (2020). Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2020(6), CD009261.

Tuuli, M. G., Liu, J., Tita, A. T. N., Longo, S., Trudell, A., Carter, E. B., et al. (2020). Effect of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy vs standard wound dressing on surgical-site infection in obese women after cesarean delivery: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 324(12), 1180–1189.

Wilkes, R. P., Kilpad, D. V., Zhao, Y., Kazala, R., & McNulty, A. (2012). Closed incision management with negative pressure wound therapy: Biomechanics. Surgical Innovation, 19(1), 67–75.