ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2015
Negative pressure wound therapy augmented full-thickness free skin grafting in the cat: outcome in 10 grafts transferred to six cats.
Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Platelet-rich plasma improves caspase-3 of skin graft treated with Tilapia Mozambique bio-dressing.Open veterinary journal · 2025Article
- Combined Oxygen-Ozone Therapy for Mesh Skin Graft in a Cat with a Hindlimb Extensive Wound.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Filling the vacuum: Role of negative pressure wound therapy in open wound management in cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2021Review
- Feasibility of a disposable canister-free negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) device for treating open wounds in horses.BMC veterinary research · 2019Article
- Retrospective comparison of negative pressure wound therapy and silver-coated foam dressings in open-wound treatment in cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this clinical evaluation was to describe the technique and outcomes of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) augmented skin grafting in cats.
methodsCats with soft tissue and skin defects (n = 6) underwent open wound management. Wounds were initially covered using a NPWT system that was changed to polyurethane foam dressing once infection was controlled and granulation started. Final closure was achieved after establishment of a healthy, fully granulated wound bed by grafting of free full-thickness skin from the lateral abdominal wall. The freshly grafted skin was then treated with an NPWT dressing at a pressure of -125 mmHg for 3 days, with dressing changes performed daily. Percentage graft take, complications, wound bioburden and cosmetic outcome were recorded.
resultsThe mean duration of open wound management was 21.4 days (range 3.0-45.0 days), with a mean duration of NPWT of 8.0 days (range 3.0-14.0 days). Five cats received a single graft, while one cat had five grafts transferred to the right hindlimb. In 7/10 grafts, graft take was 100%, in two grafts take was 95% and in one graft take was 80% (mean take rate 97%). Therapy was well tolerated in all patients. The grafted site displayed normal hair regrowth in four cats, sparse hair regrowth in one and no hair growth at all in one patient. Skin sensation was normal in all grafted patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Skin graft augmentation using NPWT in cats is a feasible option that allows graft fixation, even in anatomically demanding areas. Graft take rate reported here is slightly higher than documented in previous reports.
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.