Background Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a promising advance in the management of closed surgical incisions. NPWT application induces several effects locally within the wound including reduced lateral tension and improving lymphatic drainage. As a result, NPWT may improve wound healing and reduce surgical site complications. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic application of NPWT in preventing surgical site complications for closed incisions in breast surgery. Methods This systematic review was reported according to PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42018114625). Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies which compare the efficacy of NPWT versus non-NPWT dressings for closed incisions in breast surgery. Specific outcomes of interest were total wound complications, surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, haematoma, wound dehiscence and necrosis. Results Seven studies (1500 breast incisions in 904 patients) met the inclusion criteria. NPWT was associated with a significantly lower rate of total wound complications [odds ratio (OR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.19-069; P = 0.002], SSI (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.24-0.86; P = 0.015), seroma (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.13-0.59; P = 0.001), wound dehiscence (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.32-0.72; P \ 0.001) and wound necrosis (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.19-0.78; P = 0.008). There was no significant difference in haematoma rate (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.19-3.2; P = 0.75). Statistically significant heterogeneity existed for total wound complications, but no other outcomes. Conclusion Compared with conventional non-NPWT dressings, prophylactic application of NPWT is associated with significantly fewer surgical site complications including SSI, seroma, wound dehiscence and wound necrosis for closed breast incisions.

No abstract

Knee osteochondral defects are a common problem among people, especially young and active patients. So effective joint preserving surgeries is essential to prevent or even delay the onset of osteoarthritis for these group of patients. This study aims to critically appraise and evaluate the evidence for the results and effectiveness of femoral condyle resurfacing (HemiCAP/ UniCAP) in treatment of patients with focal femoral condyle cartilage defect. Using the search terms : HemiCAP, UniCAP, Episurf, focal, femoral, condyle, inlay and resur-facing, we reviewed the PubMed and EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) to find any articles published up to March 2020. The short term follow-up of the HemiCAP shows (6.74 %) revision rate. However, 29.13 % loss of follow up let us consider these results with caution especially if the revision rate progressively increased with time to 19.3 % in 5-7 years with no enough evidence for the long term results except the data from the Australian Joint Registry 2018, where the cumulative revision rate was 40.6 % (33.5, 48.4) at ten years. The UniCAP that used for defect more than 4 cm 2 has a high revision rate (53.66 %) which is considered unacceptable revision rate in com-parison to another similar prosthesis such as Uni-Knee Arthroplasty (UKA). The evidence from published studies and our meta- analysis suggests that partial resurfacing of the femoral condyle (HemiCAP) doesn’t support its usage as a tool to treat the focal cartilage defect in middle- aged patients. The UniCAP as femoral condyle resurfacing has very high revision rate at 5-7 years (53.66 %) which make us recommend against its usage.

No abstract

No abstract