ArticleThe Indian journal of surgery2013
Results of vacuum assisted wound closure application.
Article in The Indian journal of surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simplified Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: A Cost-Effective Solution for Wound Management.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Effect of vacuum sealing drainage on the expression of VEGF and miRNA-17-5p in seawater-immersed blast-injury wounds.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent past, various methods have been used for wound treatment purpose. In this study, we aimed to compare our results established from the vacuum-assisted wound closure method, which has gained popularity day by day, with the literature. A total of 48 patients, who received vacuum-assisted wound closure treatment in our clinic between 2007and 2010, were included in this study. Etiological distribution of the patients was as follows: 32 traumatic, 6 pressure sore, 9 diabetic, and 1 iliac disarticulation. All cases were evaluated in terms of age, gender, etiology, period of treatment, and size of the wound. In the patients studied, 42 were men (87.5 %) and 6 were women (12.5 %). Mean age of the patients was 39.6 years (11-61 years). All of our traumatic patients suffered from open fracture. After the vacuum-assisted wound closure application, wound size reduced by 28.8 %, while the mean area of the surface of the wound was 94.7 cm(2) (13.7-216.3 cm(2)) on average. After the wounds became ready for surgery, 15 of them were treated with split-thickness grafting, 9 of them were treated with secondary suture, 18 of them were treated with full-thickness grafting, and 6 of them were treated with flap. Average period of the application of vacuum-assisted wound closure was 11.6 days (7-15 days). Results of vacuum-assisted wound closure can be regarded as satisfactory when cases are selected properly. This system has three different effect mechanisms. Firstly, it increases local blood flow on the wound bed. Secondly, cell proliferation is triggered following the mechanic stress. Thirdly, vacuum removes the proteases from the environment which obstructs healing. Therefore, it is intended to prepare alive wound bed which is required for subsequent soft tissue reconstructions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.