Comparison of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Systems and Conventional Non-Pressure Dressings on Surgical Site Infection Rate After Stoma Reversal: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background/Objectives: Surgical Site Infections (SSIs) rank among the most common complications following stoma takedown and lead to increased morbidity, increased Length of Hospital Stay (LOS), and higher healthcare costs. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) systems have emerged as a promising option for optimizing wound management and minimizing SSI rates. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares postoperative outcomes of NPWT and conventional Non-Pressure Dressings following stoma reversal. Methods: A search of the literature published up to 1 September 2024 was conducted across MEDLINE/PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov. Only Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were included. The primary outcome was SSI rate, while secondary outcomes included time to complete wound healing, LOS, and patient-reported wound cosmesis. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. The results were synthesized using means and Standard Deviations for continuous variables, counts and percentages for categorical variables, and presented as Odds Ratios (OR) or Mean Differences (MD) with 95% Confidence Intervals, using random or fixed effects models based on heterogeneity (I2). Results: Six RCTs, including 328 patients, were ultimately eligible for inclusion. No significant difference was revealed in SSI rates between the NPWT and conventional dressing groups (OR = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.27–3.29; p = 0.94; I2 = 38%). Time to complete wound healing was significantly lower in the NPWT group compared to conventional dressings (MD = −3.78 days; 95% CI: −6.29 to −1.27; p = 0.003). Two studies reported a lower rate of wound healing complications other than SSIs in the NPWT group (OR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.05–1.09; p = 0.06). No substantial differences were observed in terms of LOS (MD = −0.02 days; 95% CI: −1.22 to 1.17; p = 0.97) and patient-reported wound cosmesis (SMD = 0.31; 95% CI: −0.49 to 1.11; p = 0.44). The review’s limitations include potential risk of bias, variability in study designs, and heterogeneity between studies. Conclusions: NPWT contributes to improved wound management through reducing wound healing time compared to Non-Pressure Dressings after stoma reversal, although it does not appear to substantially impact SSI rates, LOS, or patient-assessed wound cosmesis. Further large-scale, multicenter RCTs are necessary to validate these results and identify patient populations most likely to benefit from NPWT application.