ArticleInternational wound journal2019
Does closed incision negative wound pressure therapy in non-traumatic major lower-extremity amputations improve survival rates?
Article in International wound journal, 2019. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical site infection following incisional negative pressure wound therapy in lower limb amputation closure: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy versus Standard of Care in Reduction of Surgical Site Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Incisional negative pressure wound therapy to reduce surgical-site infections in major limb amputations: a meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2022Review
- Review
- Does closed incision negative wound pressure therapy in non-traumatic major lower-extremity amputations improve survival rates?International wound journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (CINPWT) has been shown to be clinically effective compared with the traditional gauze dressing, reducing surgical site infections and wound complications. We evaluated the effect of CINPWT compared with gauze dressing on the need for revision surgery and survival after non-traumatic major lower amputation. We included 309 patients undergoing 403 major lower amputations in a retrospective study from January 1, 2010 to November 23, 2017. A total of 139 patients received CINPWT, and 170 patients received stump bandage. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding the need for revision surgery (P = .45). Fourteen stump bandage patients and 15 CINPWT patients died in hospital (P = .57). One year after amputation, 55 CINPWT patients and 66 stump bandage patients had died (P = .82). Survival probabilities adjusted for age and gender 2 years after amputation were .52 (.43-.61) and .49 (.42-.58), respectively, and 3 years after amputation were .36 (.25-.50) and .39 (.32-.47), respectively. We also found no significant difference in the need for revision surgery in survival probabilities up till 3 years after amputation between patients treated with CINPWT and patients treated with gauze bandage postoperatively.
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.