Surgical site infections in colorectal surgery

Surgical site infections (SSI) are relatively common postoperative complications, reaching 38 % in surgical unit [1]. SSI are responsible of significant complications and disabilities [1–4], potentially life-threatening [5]. They also increase the costs of care and need for repeated hospitalizations or referral to Intensive Care Units [4–9]. It has been estimated that SSI are responsible of over 1.5 billion dollar excess costs per year in the US [10]. Surgical site complications affect the quality of wound healing and the perceived health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which is a major concern in general surgery, especially in young patients [11], in whom SSI represent the commonest hospital-acquired complication. The highest incidence is observed in patients undergoing small bowel and colon surgery [1–4].

SSI are the commonest complication after colorectal surgery [12], affecting up to 16.3 and 12.5 % of patients after small bowel or colon surgery, respectively [1–4]. Besides being responsible for prolonged stay in the hospital, with the need of further treatments and higher costs, SSI can delay potential adjuvant treatments in oncologic patients [12, 13].

The rates of wound complications and SSI are influenced by complex interactions between patient- and procedure-related factors, which can be partially modified by preventive strategies. Patient-related factors are represented by prolonged or high-dose intake of steroid drugs, smoking habit, diabetes, high body mass index (BMI), stomas at the time of surgery, concomitant conditions (e.g. immunosuppression) or predisposing diseases [e.g. inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD)] [8, 9, 14–16]. A report from the Cleveland clinic suggested that age >55 years and thrombocytopenia are additional risk factors to be considered [13]. Procedure-related factors consist of prolonged length of surgery, intra-operative hypotension, bacterial contamination (especially from colon and rectum), pre-existent infections or contaminations (e.g. penetrating traumas) [16–18]. In detail, the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) Risk Index, developed by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), quantifies in 3 h the threshold for increased risk of SSI in colorectal surgery [18]. Minimally invasive surgery has been associated with a reduced risk of SSI [19].

Aiming to prevent SSI, modifiable factors should be corrected (e.g. smoking discontinuation, weight loss), and preventive strategies applied when possible. Evidence level I prophylactic approaches in colorectal surgery consist of timely and appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis, which must be suspended within 24 h from surgery [20], correct hair removal from the surgical site, maintenance of normothermia during the entire procedure. The CDC developed guidelines to prevent SSI, focussing on specific surgical specialties [21]. Antibiotics should be administered within 1 h before the procedure (2 h for vancomycin and fluoroquinolones) [20], and it is important to choose the most appropriate agents in relation to the procedure performed. Potential pre-operative infections must be suspected, diagnosed, and treated. Adequate antiseptic skin agents must be used [21]. Enemas and oral cathartics are to be administered for the mechanical colon preparation, and oral non-absorbed antimicrobials should be given in two different administrations the day before surgery [21]. During surgery, the OR traffic should be kept at the minimum [21], and wounds should be covered with sterile gauzes to be removed after 24/48 h [21].

Little is known concerning the impact on SSI of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on closed incisions in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Aims of the review were to assess the current risk of SSI in colorectal surgery and their potential classifications, and to seek for the role of preventive NPWT.

Materials and methods

Aims

Primary

To assess the effects of NPWT on surgical wound healing by primary closure after colorectal surgery compared with conventional dressings.

Secondary

(1) To report on the impact of SSI in colorectal surgery, (2) to report on suggested classifications and risk-reduction strategies in colorectal surgery, and (3) to report on the rationale underlying the use of preventive NPWT in colorectal surgery.

Inclusion criteria

Prospective or retrospective cohort studies comparing the effects of prophylactic NPWT after colorectal surgery with conventional dressings were evaluated for inclusion. Studies evaluating NPWT for abdominal complications or in open abdomen were not included for primary aim purposes. Studies mentioning other-than-colorectal procedures were included only if colorectal patients were clearly identifiable. Studies were evaluated for potential replication of data. Studies were only included if adequate information were provided. Only studies published as full-text article were included.

To allow for easier comparisons and reliable data, studies dealing with patients who underwent surgery without bowel opening (e.g. plastic surgery procedures, gynaecologic surgery) were removed, as the different microbial contaminations would have biased the results.

Data search

Available data of all studies published between January 2000 and December 2014 were evaluated for inclusion. The literature searches were carried out on PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Google search engine was searched. Keywords and medical subjects headings (MeSH) used are reported in Table 1. Limits: publication date between 2000 and 2014. Cross-referencing and related articles were reviewed. The reference lists of all articles were searched for further eligible studies. Experimental articles were excluded. Article published in English, French, Spanish, Dutch, or Italian were included.

Table 1 Keywords and MeSH terms used to systematically review the literature
Full size table

Outcome measures

SSI and wound dehiscence were defined and referred according to CDC criteria [18].

Data extraction

Selected publications were read and all information gathered. Data of interest: years and location of studies; year of publication; inclusion/exclusion criteria; perioperative care and postoperative follow-up duration/pathway; number of patients; patient- and disease-related characteristics; concomitant medications; type of surgery; SSI, wound complications; and all perioperative complications.

Results and discussion

Characteristics of included studies are reported in Table 2. All studies were used for the secondary aim, along with specific reports without clinical data or comparisons, which were not eligible for the primary aim. The flow chart for systematic study selection is reported in Fig. 1.

Table 2 Data of studies evaluating colorectal procedures included for the primary aim
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of study selection for inclusion in the analysis

Full size image

After careful screening of data, five studies were eligible and were included for the primary aim (see “Clinical trials on preventive NPWT in Colorectal surgery” section).

SSI risk stratification in colorectal surgery

Patients undergoing colorectal surgery are at increased risk of SSI and wound complications compared with other surgical specialties [12], and this could be explained in part with differences in terms of risk factors for SSI between baseline diseases [13].

Colorectal surgeons [22] and National Institutes of Health [18, 21, 23–25] are gradually becoming aware of the need of developing and put to use strategies aimed at timely identification, treatment, and prevention of SSI.

In the US, the Joint Commission recently introduced the routine adoption of SSI preventing measures as necessary criteria for Health Institutes to obtain accreditation [26], and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement established a campaign to improve patient-reported outcomes in the eventuality of SSI [23]. In addition, pay-for-performance health systems based on SSI have been introduced. Starting from October 2008, the Centre for Medicare and Medicaid Services [27] suspended refunds for hospital-acquired infections deemed preventable (rule CMS-1488-P), among which SSI are enlisted. The National Surgery Quality Improvement Project of the American College of Surgeons (ACS-NSQIP) was the first attempt of correlating the risk of SSI and the surgical procedure, aimed at simplifying comparisons between different Hospitals, which was established in 1994 in some Hospitals of Northern America Veteran’s Administration [24]. In the included Centres, a 50 and 30 % drop in morbidity and mortality was observed [25]. Under the light of such results, after 10 years, the ACS-NSQIP has been extended to include all interested health centres, allowing for the publication of a model to predict the risk of SSI based on a multivariate logistic regression including general and vascular surgery procedures [13, 28]. By only evaluating centres highly-weighted on colorectal surgery, the latter increased per se the risk of SSI, with a predicted-observed ratio of 1.27 [13].

Wick et al. [13] reported on 1646 patients operated on at the Cleveland Clinic in US, of whom 17 % received colorectal procedures. The authors proposed several predictors of SSI: (1) age ≥55 years (OR 1.69, 95 % CI 1.01–2.81; p = 0.045), (2) BMI ≥30 kg/m2 (OR 2.04, 95 % CI 1.20–3.44; p = 0.008), (3) platelet count ≤150 × 103/μL (OR 2.87, 95 % CI 1.17–7.03; p = 0.021), and (4) surgical procedure lasting ≥180 min (OR 1.73, 95 % CI 1.04–2.87; p = 0.034). Out of 280 patients receiving colic or rectal resections, 40 (14.3 %) developed SSI, compared with 155/1366 (9.4 %) undergoing other procedures [13]. The relatively limited number of patients did not allow for developing a predictive score or algorithm.

Aiming at preventing SSI, the CDC proposed a score, the NNIS risk index [18], obtained by analysing data of SSI in several Centres. The score is easily computed, with only three variables, hence ranging between 0 and 3 points. These consist of surgery being classified as “contaminated” or “dirty”, preoperative American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score >3, and surgery lasting over the 75th standard percentile according to the procedure being performed (e.g. 3 h for colorectal surgery). The risk of SSI increases with higher scores [18]. However, the ease of computation of this score is overwhelmed by several limitations. The restricted number of total scores limits the discriminatory capacities, the weight of each variable may not be equal to the others, and it is not possible to stratify the risk according to specific procedures [29–31].

These observations lead van Walraven et al. [29] to propose an alternative score, the Site Infection Risk Score (SSIRS), using data obtained from the ACS-NSQIP. By evaluating 363.040 surgical procedures performed in 2010, the authors identified the following predictors of SSI:

  • Patient-related factors: smoking, high BMI, peripheral vasculopathies, metastatic cancers, steroid medications, preoperative infections.

  • Procedure-related factors: patients operated on in inpatient or emergent settings, contaminated or dirty surgical field, ASA score ≥3, general rather than local anaesthesia, more than one procedure performed, prolonged surgical time.

Discriminatory power of SSIRS was confirmed with a validation group (c-statistics = 0.800) [29]. The authors also suggested a web-page where the risk score can be computed (http://www.ohri.ca/SSI_risk_index/Default.aspx) [29]. However, such a score is difficult to be applied in everyday practice.

The system proposed by Hedrick et al. [3] in 2013 is of easier application and more focussed on colorectal surgery. This consists of a nomogram designed from Colorectal ACS-NSQIP data, including 18.403 patients undergoing colorectal procedures, in whom 1447 (7.9 %) superficial and 278 (1.5 %) deep SSI were observed. Factors associated with higher risk of SSI were (1) age >75 years, (2) smoking habit, (3) alcohol intake >2 drinks/die in the week before surgery, (4) dependent functional status before the procedure, (5) ASA score ≥3, (6) intra-operative transfusions, (7) surgery for enterocutaneous stoma reversal, (8) open surgery, (9) high BMI, (10) high preoperative haematocrit [3]. Each factor is assigned a score, the sum of which represents the risk of developing superficial or deep SSI. However, the study lacks a prospective validation of the findings.

Adherence to SSI preventive pathways in colorectal surgery: results in everyday practice

After the development of guidelines for the prevention and management of SSI by ACS-NSQIP, several centres successfully applied strategies to reduce wound-related complications.

Concerning colorectal surgery, a study from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester [2] published in 2013 reported on the results obtained by applying an algorithm to prevent SSI after Colorectal procedures. Cima et al. [2] compared the rates of SSI between 2009 and 2010, included in ACS-NSQIP program, with those of 2011, after the introduction of specific rules to prevent SSI. The authors found a reduction of overall SSI from 9.8 to 4 % (p < 0.05), and a reduction of both superficial (4.9 vs 1.5 %, p < 0.05) and organ/space SSI (4 vs 2.6 %, p = 0.10) [2].

Even if the authors are not able to identify a single factor to justify these good outcomes, the study offers some interesting perspectives. It should be considered that a consistent number of patients in the study were suffering from IBD, which are an independent predictor of SSI [8, 9]. The algorithm that the authors propose [2] has some features in common with the CDC NNIS concerning pre-, intra-, and post-operative management of colorectal surgery patients. Under the light of the recent studies it should be underscored that preventive NPWT is not considered, at least in a subgroup of patients at high risk of developing SSI.

The role of NPWT in the prevention of SSI and wound complications in colorectal surgery: rationale

Over the last decades NPWT has been used for several procedures. It has been effectively advocated and is now recommended in patients with open bone fractures [32], in donor sites of skin patches [33], burns [34], diabetic and pressure ulcers [35–37], post-traumatic wounds [38], split-thickness skin graft [39], sterna incisions [40], and open abdominal wounds [41]. More recently, NPWT has been recommended in obese patients after both clean [42] and clean-contaminated surgery [7]. Benefits are observed also in Crohn’s disease (CD) [8, 9] as well as in elderly patients [7].

The excellent outcomes obtained lead investigators to apply NPWT as a preventive measure against SSI and wound complications in patients undergoing surgery with primary wound closure [7–9, 43, 44]. However, despite the good results, this indication is not well-known.

NPWT consists of a closed, sealed system generating negative pressure in proximity of the wound surface. Depending on the wound characteristics, either sterile gauzes or other products (e.g. foams), covered by sterile sheets, may be indicated to apply NPWT. Intermittent or continuous negative pressure is obtained by connecting such medications to vacuum pumps with canisters to collect fluids. Negative pressure values commonly used range between −125 and −50 mmHg [45, 46].

Wound healing is achieved through three consecutive and overlapping phases: inflammation, new tissue formation/deposition, and remodelling [47]. The specific mechanism underlying the effectiveness of NPWT in facilitating healing still remains unknown. Recent studies suggest that this may be due to NPWT (1) generating a moist environment, removing the excess fluids, (2) reducing tissue oedema, (3) contracting wound edges, (4) causing a mechanical stimulus for the wound bed, (5) stimulating neo-angiogenesis and deposition of granulation tissue [48]. In addition, by keeping the wound “sealed”, it confers protection against exogenous agents and contamination due to repeated dressing changes, particularly useful in patients with enterocutaneous stomas [49].

In Colorectal surgery patients needing abdominal incisions, NPWT use needs to be implemented by a specific formation of the caregivers, concerning the benefits and potential risk related with this technology. Experimental models suggested that excessively negative pressure values could cause ischemic damages to the bowel loops directly exposed to NPWT in open abdomen [50, 51]. The blood flow in the wall of the bowel loops decreases with decreasing pressures applied [51]. These observations advocate the need of utilising correct negative pressure values and specific interfaces to preserve bowel loops, should NPWT be applied after wound dehiscence or in wound healing by secondary intention. Anyway, NPWT is widely used safely in digestive surgery, when appropriate rules are followed, even in wounds with exposed hollow viscera and in paediatric patients [52–55]. NPWT should be carefully considered in patients with bad health status or with coagulation disturbances predisposing to haemorrhage, as it may determine bleeding, or protein and fluid/electrolyte loss [54, 56].

The commonest disadvantages of conventional NPWT consist of the high costs of the therapy (considering the vacuum devices, the disposable canisters to collect fluids, and the need of charging batteries), the reduced transportability of cumbersome devices, and their difficult management. These shortcomings justify the interest raised by a new disposable, pocket device for NPWT (PICO, Smith & Nephew, UK) [7], useful for the prevention of SSI in wound healing by primary intention. The device is small and works with two AA batteries. It does not need a canister to collect fluids (canister-free), which are absorbed by specifically designed gauze. The exudates are removed through moisture absorption and transpiration. The fluids enter the airlock stratus of the gauze, and are then rapidly absorbed by the hydrophilic stratus. This results in the formation of a gel that keeps fluids away from the wound, while the film on the superior part of the gauze allows moisture to evaporate. The balance between produced and evaporated fluid is dynamically maintained, avoiding that the gauze becomes too thick and heavy while in place. PICO generates a continuous, pre-set negative pressure of -80 mmHg, the ideal value for abdominal incision healing by primary closure [52–54]. Once activated, batteries work for 7 days, and there is no need of dressing change—unless the gauze becomes too wet. Pocket devices are well accepted and easily managed by patients [8], making these suitable for home therapy. A stoma does not contraindicate NPWT, even with PICO, but application could be more difficult [55]. It is important to place gauzes and apply NPWT at the end of the procedure, immediately after closing the skin incision and before opening/maturating the stoma [9, 43].

Clinical trials on preventive NPWT in Colorectal surgery

The first prospective, pilot trial on preventive NPWT in Colorectal surgery was published in 2014 [9], and included patients suffering from CD, an independent predictor of SSI. It is a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Controls received standard sterile wound dressings. Between January 2012 and October 2013 30 patients with stricturing CD undergoing abdominal surgery were enrolled. Patients were included if during the procedure small and/or large bowel were opened or resected. Patients undergoing laparoscopy with no need of conversion, those who did not require opening bowel segments, and those who underwent massive bowel resection were excluded from the study. Patients fit for inclusion who were able to manage the device (PICO) and were willing to receive it, were assigned to NPWT group, and had the device placed at end of the procedure, after closure by primary intention (n = 13 patients). The control group (n = 17 patients) received conventional sterile dressings.

In all patients, perioperative management was carried out according to CDC guidelines, implemented with NPWT in PICO group [21]. Gauzes were temporarily removed on postoperative day three also in the group receiving PICO, to allow wound assessment. The device was removed on postoperative day seven, and in selected patients an additional NPWT treatment was considered. In controls, dressing were usually changed sterilely after 48 h, and removed within 3 days from surgery. Follow-ups were scheduled on postoperative day seven, 15, and 30, then every 14 days during the subsequent 3 months. Five patients in the NPWT group were sent home with the device, removed within 4 days from discharge. Primary outcomes consisted of SSI and wound complications, according to CDC criteria [21] and Global ASEPSIS score [57, 58]. The cosmetic results were evaluated by means of Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) [59] and of a 10-cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, “0”, worse, “10” best outcome) 3 months after surgery, as secondary aim.

NPWT with PICO significantly reduced overall SSI rates compared with conventional dressings. Only one patient receiving NPWT (7.7 %) had SSI, classified as superficial, compared with eight (47 %) controls (p = 0.042). No other differences were observed concerning both minor and major postoperative complications [9]. Cosmetic results were similar between groups [9]. Groups were homogeneous in terms of demographical and surgical data, whereas length of stay was significantly shorter with NPWT (7 ± 1.8 vs 10 ± 1.6 days, p = 0.0007) [9].

Under the light of the excellent results obtained, enrolment was extended to include up to 25 patients per group [8], and results confirmed the benefits obtained with preventive NPWT. Wound complications were reduced by NPWT (seroma 2 vs 11 patients, p = 0.008, Global ASEPSIS score 14 ± 7 vs 28 ± 5, p = 0.001, NPWT vs controls), as well as SSI (2 vs 12, p = 0.004), and length of stay (7 ± 2 vs 12 ± 2 days, p = 0.0001).

In addition, a logistic regression including all enrolled patients showed that perioperative corticosteroid drugs (which are often needed in IBD patients candidates to surgery) were independent predictors of surgical site events (OR 1.95, CI 95 % 1.12–4.33, p = 0.02), which were significantly reduced with NPWT (OR 0.21, CI 95 % 0.15–0.5, p = 0.001) [8]. A subgroup analysis including patients receiving >20 mg/day or steroids at surgery was hence performed, and showed that the effects of NPWT were even more apparent (SSI: 1/13 vs 9/12, p = 0.001) [8].

These results are confirmed by a retrospective study including patients undergoing colorectal surgery with primary wound closure [43], who received NPWT by means of conventional devices. Similarly, corticosteroid medications were significantly associated with SSI [43].

Another retrospective study from Canada [60] evaluated the impact of preventive NPWT on SSI after rectal cancer surgery with abdominoperineal excision. NPWT was applied on the perineal wounds of 27 patients, and these were compared with 32 receiving conventional dressings. The latter had higher incidence of SSI, causing significant morbidity [60]. However, the last two cited studies have two major limitations due to their retrospective nature and the use of expensive, cumbersome NPWT devices [43, 60]. This makes it difficult to lead readers to accept their use preventively, which means before complications occur.

Portable devices could be useful in increasing patient adherence to NPWT, and device-related comfort [8, 9]. It has been shown that most problems due to device activation are easily dealt with by patients themselves, even in home settings, with no need of unscheduled office visits [8, 9].

Some facets of the above reported studies need further comments. IBD may affect people at any age [61–64]. Patients suffering from CD often need prolonged perioperative antibiotic treatment, which is a risk factor for SSI. It is interesting to consider that samples from surgical specimens of these patients may show pathogens in lymph nodes and gut serosa even without macroscopic evidence of contamination [65]. This may be responsible for postoperative sepsis, a dreaded complication [65, 66]. In common practice, perioperative antibiotic treatment is often different from other colorectal patients.

IBD pathogenesis relies on a complex interaction between environmental and autoimmune mechanisms, which still remain largely unknown [67–70]. As a result, IBD patents have impaired responses to host factors, affecting reaction to environmental agents, and increasing the risk of malignancies through inflammatory pathways, different from those observed in sporadic carcinogenesis [70–72]. Approximately 80 % of CD patients undergo surgery during life, often at young age, and more than half may need repeated surgery in the following 20 years [73–75]. It is important to obtain a rapid wound healing, allowing for early and safe discharge, and to achieve optimal wound healing, especially relevant in young patients candidates to further surgery.

In addition, these patients frequently need surgery in emergent settings due to abrupt onset, often needed fashioning of stomas [76, 77], and sometimes receive immunomodulators at surgery. These medications modulate local and systemic inflammatory response, and may increase the rate of wound dehiscence, septic complications, and impaired synthesis of collagen, ultimately resulting in delayed wound healing [78]. Prolonged or high-dose corticosteroid intake increases the likeliness of SSI. An analysis of more than 7000 patients developing SSI after general or vascular surgery showed that patients receiving steroids had 1.387 OR of SSI (p < 0.0001) [79]. A more recent paper suggested that the rate of SSI can increase from 2.9 to 5 % with perioperative steroids (OR 1.724) [80]. These observations are confirmed in colorectal surgery [8, 9, 43]. The role of biologic medications, which are suggested to increase the risk of septic complications after surgery for IBD, is controversial concerning wound healing, and further data are needed to assess their effect [81].

The most recent clinical study dealing with preventive NPWT in general and colorectal surgery included 50 patients undergoing surgery for breast diseases and 50 patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Each group included 25 patients treated with postoperative prophylactic NPWT and 25 receiving conventional wound dressings. In addition, ten patients per sub-group were older than 65 years of age at surgery [7]. The primary outcome of the study was to assess safety and effectiveness of NPWT with PICO in preventing wound complication compared with standard wound management in patients undergoing both breast and colorectal procedures. The secondary aims were to assess (1) effectiveness and safety of NPWT in geriatric patients, and (2) to seek for potential differences in results between the two types of surgery (breast vs colorectal) [7]. Intuitively, all patients in the breast surgery group were female (50 vs 28 patients, p < 0.0001) and had shorter duration of surgical procedures (p < 0.0001) and wound length (p = 0.003) than colorectal patients. Sub-groups were homogeneous. Length of stay was similar in NPWT and controls after breast surgery, whereas in Colorectal patients receiving NPWT it was shortened by half (7 ± 2.1 vs 12 ± 3.5 days, p = 0.001). The rate of seroma was significantly reduced with NPWT in Colorectal patients (8 vs 40 %, p = 0.02), but no differences were observed in breast patients. All NPWT patients had lower incidence of SSI (breast: 8 vs 36 %, p = 0.04; Colorectal: 8 vs 44 %, p = 0.08) and global ASEPSIS score (breast: 12 ± 3.2 vs 18.2 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; colorectal: 14.6 ± 4.7 vs 25.3 ± 3.3, p = 0.01). Sub-group analyses on elderly patients (10 per sub-group) suggested that results were even more apparent considering surgical site complications (breast: 0 vs 50 %, p = 0.003; colorectal: 10 vs 60 %, p = 0.003), with no differences between breast and Colorectal diseases (breast vs colorectal surgery: p > 0.99) [7]. No undesired events or complications were observed with NPWT devices.

The latter paper offers other causes for reflection. Patients diagnosed with malignancies often need multimodal treatment, including radiotherapy and chemotherapy, or combined radiochemotherapy, which can be administered preoperatively [82–89]. These cause therapeutic immunodepression, but might increase the risk of surgical site events. This is showed by the very recent attention to patients undergoing surgery for Colorectal malignancies, with studies aiming at reducing the risk of SSI in patients undergoing rectal surgery after chemoradiation showing the usefulness of gentamicin implants in the pelvis [82]. Preventive NPWT could be considered complementary to other intraoperative measures to obtain a synergistic effect, increasing protection against SSI, acting against all sources of infection (endogenous and exogenous) [83, 90]. Besides reducing the costs of care due to SSI and increasing patients’ HRQoL, preventive NPWT could enhance wound healing allowing for early initiation of adjuvant therapy after surgery. In our opinion, this is a very important point. Finally, due to advances in multimodal management of patients with recurrent pelvic malignancies [84–86], the risk of further surgery is to be considered.

At present, no clear or widely accepted algorithms are available to predict likeliness of SSI, and select patients who would benefit from prophylactic NPWT, and the development of easily reproducible predicting scores (similar to those of other conditions [91–93]) would be desirable. In our practice, we currently consider and propose prophylactic placement of NPWT to patients with at least two accepted predictors of SSI [3, 17, 21, 28, 29], or when there is a break in perioperative prophylactic measures [21]. Patients receiving steroids, frail (in the elderly with comorbidities—who are not excluded from major procedures in current practice [7, 93–95] ) or immunodepressed patients, and young patients suffering from IBD [7–9] are the ideal candidates to preventive NPWT after Colorectal surgery. It can be predicted that the use of preventive NPWT is cost-effective and well accepted in these patients. In times of spending review and difficult patient-caregiver relationships [96], the role of pocket disposable devices for NPWT is crucial, due to their limited costs and patient satisfaction. The use of these technologies should be encouraged, because as long as Colorectal surgeons use these they are going to become conscious of their utility, and, most importantly, of their shortcomings, fostering further researches and implementations. Waiting for randomised controlled trials, this is likely to optimise the outcomes of colorectal surgery, hopefully reflecting in optimal HRQoL of patients.