The impact of a muscle pump activator on incisional wound healing compared to standard stockings and compression devices in kidney and kidney-pancreas transplant recipients: A randomized, controlled trial
Introduction: We aimed to evaluate the impact of thrombo-embolic- deterrent + intermittent pneumatic compression (TED + IPC) vs. muscle pump activator (MPA) on incisional wound healing in kidney and simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplant recipients.
Methods: We conducted a single-center, randomized, controlled trial in which 104 patients (kidney n=94; SPK n=10) were randomly assigned to wear TED + IPC (n=52) or MPA (n=52) for the first six days following surgery. Patient demographics, postoperative outcomes, and incisional wound images were taken using a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant application on postoperative days (POD) 3, 5, and 30, and assessed using the validated Southampton Wound Care Score.
Results: There were no demographic differences between the groups. The MPA group had a significant improvement in wound healing on POD 3 (p=0.04) that persisted until POD 5 (p=0.0003). At POD 30, both groups were similar in wound healing outcomes (p=0.51). Bayesian inferential analysis revealed that the use of TED + IPC following transplantation had inferior outcomes compared to the use of MPA with sequential moderate evidence. The rate of complex wound infections was significantly greater in the TED + IPC group compared to the MPA group (29% vs. 12%, respectively; p=0.03). Patients were more satisfied with the use of a MPA device than TED + IPC. No major complications were encountered in either group.
Conclusions: The use of a MPA device in the immediate postoperative period leads to a significant improvement in immediate and early wound healing, and decreased number of complex wound infections following kidney and SPK transplantation compared to standard TED + IPC therapy. Patients were more satisfied with the use of a MPA device than TED + IPC.
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.