No abstract

Background The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) for patients with end-stage cardiac failure awaiting heart transplantation has become increasingly common. However, ventricular assist device–related infections remain a major problem complicating their long-term use. Poor data exist to determine how to manage these infections after operative debridement. Methods Patients who underwent insertion of a ventricular assist device and had a subsequent readmission for LVAD infection at the University of Rochester Medical Center from 2012 to 2022 were identified through accessing the medical records archives of the hospital. Patients were followed retrospectively for an average of 3.2 years. Patient demographics, preoperative diagnosis/disease state, type of ventricular assist device inserted, postoperative day of ventricular assist device infection onset, infectious organism identified at initial washout, infectious organism identified at time of definitive device coverage, timing of coverage procedure after the initial washout for infection, type of flap used for coverage, 90-day complications after definitive coverage, and lifetime return to operating room for infection were reviewed. Comparison analysis with a χ2 test was used to analyze outcomes. Results Of 568 patients admitted with an LVAD-related infection 117 underwent operative debridement. Of these, 34 underwent primary closure, 31 underwent closure with secondary intention (negative pressure wound therapy with split thickness skin grafting), and 52 were closed with a flap (pectoralis, omental, latissimus, or vertical rectus abdominus musculocutaneous flap). There was a statistically significant higher incidence of return to the operating room (RTOR) for infection over a lifetime with primary closure compared with secondary intention and flap reconstruction (P = 0.01, 0.02), but no difference in 90-day complications (P = 0.76, P = 0.58). Eighty-three patients had a positive culture upon definitive coverage with 24 having a postsurgical complication, 15 of which required lifetime RTOR for infection. Thirty four were closed with negative cultures with 9 having a complication and 4 requiring RTOR for infection. This was not statistically significant for complications or RTOR (P = 0.79, 0.40). Culture data were further substratified into bacterial cultures (n = 73) versus fungal cultures (n = 10), and there was no statistically significant difference between these compared with complications or RTOR (P = 0.40, 0.39). Conclusions Coverage of infected LVADs with locoregional flaps or allowing to granulate using wound vac therapy has a decreased lifetime RTOR for future infections for these patients without increase in 90-day complications. Timing of RTOR should not be impacted by positive cultures provided there is healthy granulation tissue in the wound.

Background Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) over split thickness skin grafts can control exudate, decrease infection rates, and improve revascularization. However, no study specifically addresses differences in outcomes between meshed/perforated and non-meshed autologous skin grafts dressed with NPWT. Methods Through retrospective chart review, patients undergoing autologous split thickness skin grafting with a NPWT dressing for any burn injury over a ten-month period were identified. Data on etiology, graft take, meshed/perforated or non-meshed graft, graft size, and seroma/hematoma incidence were collected. Results Our study included 123 patients who had STSG with NPWT and consisted of 57% males, 57% Caucasian, and an average age of 41. Burn injury etiologies consisted of scald (55%), chemical (25%), flame (15%), and contact (5%). Average 2 nd degree TBSA in our cohort was 2.34%, 3 rd degree TBSA 4.50%, and total TBSA 5.35%. 66.7% of patients received non-meshed grafts, and these patients had an average graft area of 76.5cm 2. 33.3% of patients received meshed grafts, with an average graft area of 163.5cm 2. Non-meshed burn grafts were significantly smaller than meshed grafts (p=0.04). There was 100% graft take and 0% seroma/hematoma formation in all patients. Data was analyzed using an unpaired student’s T test and ANOVA testing. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics, or burn etiology. Conclusions There exist many options for dressings after repair of burn injuries, each with its own unique advantages. There were, however, no differences in graft take or incidence of seroma/hematoma formation using a NPWT dressing over autologous meshed grafts vs non-meshed grafts. Our data shows that NPWT use as a bolster dressing is safe and efficacious overlying meshed skin grafts and non-meshed grafts.

Background: Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are used for soft tissue augmentation across surgical specialties. Since allograft incorporation depends on direct opposition between the ADM and a vascular bed, seroma formation can be detrimental to incorporation. Since most ADM products are available in many meshed and perforated forms, there is a lack of consistency between manufacture designs. We set out to determine the fluid egress properties and increase in surface area resulting from common cut patterns. Methods: Three ADM cut patterns were studied: 1 meshed and 2 perforated. We calculated the surface area of these modified ADM samples. Fluid was passed through each ADM, and time required for fluid passage was recorded. An ANOVA ( P < 0.05) was used to determine if there was a significant difference in egress properties across the 3 patterns. Results: Meshing in a 1:1 pattern resulted in a 97.50% increase in surface area compared with the uncut product. In comparison, only a 0.30% increase resulted from Perforation Pattern #1 and a 0.59% increase resulted from Perforation Pattern #2. There was a significant difference in egress properties across the three cut patterns ( P = 0.000). The average egress time of Mesh Pattern #1 was 1.974 seconds. The average egress time of Perforation Pattern #2 was 6.504 seconds, and of Perforation Pattern #1 was 10.369 seconds. Conclusions: Quantitative comparison revealed that meshing ADM significantly improves fluid egress and increases the surface area. Therefore, the use of meshed ADM tissue could improve the incorporation of ADM with the recipient, with improved patient outcomes.