ArticleWorld journal of surgery2018
A Novel Wound Retractor Combining Continuous Irrigation and Barrier Protection Reduces Incisional Contamination in Colorectal Surgery.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03816995 (A Novel Wound Retractor Combining Continuous Irrigation and Barrier Protection Reduces Incisional Contamination and Surgical Site Infection in Colorectal Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
A Novel Wound Retractor Combining Continuous Irrigation and Barrier Protection Reduces Incisional Contamination and Surgical Site Infection in Colorectal Surgery
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of wound protectors in preventing surgical site infection in patients undergoing abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Surgical Site Infections in Colorectal Cancer Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Surgical Approach and Associated Risk Factors.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Impact of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Social Media: Does Science Trend As Much As Everyday Events?World journal of surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infection (SSI) remains a persistent and morbid problem in colorectal surgery. Key to its pathogenesis is the degree of intraoperative bacterial contamination at the surgical site. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a novel wound retractor at reducing bacterial contamination.
methodsA prospective multicenter pilot study utilizing a novel wound retractor combining continuous irrigation and barrier protection was conducted in patients undergoing elective colorectal resections. Culture swabs were collected from the incision edge prior to device placement and from the exposed and protected incision edge prior to device removal. The primary and secondary endpoints were the rate of enteric and overall bacterial contamination on the exposed incision edge as compared to the protected incision edge, respectively. The safety endpoint was the absence of serious device-related adverse events.
resultsA total of 86 patients were eligible for analysis. The novel wound retractor was associated with a 66% reduction in overall bacterial contamination at the protected incision edge compared to the exposed incision edge (11.9 vs. 34.5%, P < 0.001), and 71% reduction in enteric bacterial contamination (9.5% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.001). The incisional SSI rate was 2.3% in the primary analysis and 1.2% in those that completed the protocol. There were no adverse events attributed to device use.
conclusionsA novel wound retractor combining continuous irrigation and barrier protection was associated with a significant reduction in bacterial contamination. Improved methods to counteract wound contamination represent a promising strategy for SSI prevention (NCT 02413879).
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.