2025/04/30 by Pedro Saramago, Athanasios Gkekas, Catherine Arundel +19 · 1 voice
Health Professions · Medicine · #Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management #Surgical site infection prevention #Wound Healing and Treatments
paper · pdf · doi:10.1093/bjs/znaf077
openalex publication_date 2025/04/30 · openalex created_date 2025/05/06 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/02
BACKGROUND: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been used in clinical practice for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention (SWHSI), despite limited evidence regarding its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NPWT for SWHSI, compared with standard dressings, from the perspective of the UK healthcare system. METHODS: An economic model was used to extrapolate the effectiveness results of a meta-analysis over a patient's lifetime and estimate the costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) of NPWT and standard dressings. The probability of NPWT being cost-effective was estimated, with extensive scenario analyses conducted to evaluate the robustness of results and the degree of uncertainty. RESULTS: On average, NPWT was associated with higher costs and marginally higher QALYs than standard dressings. The cost difference was mainly driven by the additional intervention costs associated with NPWT. The estimated probability of NPWT being cost-effective was <30%. There was considerable uncertainty in the findings, driven largely by uncertainty in the estimated pooled relative effect from the meta-analysis. Results were robust to different scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: No evidence was found demonstrating that NPWT was a cost-effective alternative to standard dressings for SWHSI.