Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31641785›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2021

Effects of negative-pressure therapy with and without ropivacaine instillation in the early evolution of severe peritonitis in pigs.

Montiel Jiménez-Fuertes, Dolores C García-Olmo, Sara Puy, Marc Beisani, Francisca Planells, Alba Boldó, Jaime Ruiz-Tovar, Manuel Durán, Damián García-Olmo

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 48% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Porcine models of acute kidney injury.American journal of physiology. Renal physiology · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Montiel Jiménez-FuertesFundación Jiménez Díaz (IIS-FJD), "Rey Juan Carlos" University Hospital and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, Madrid, Spain. montiel.jf77@gmail.com.
Dolores C García-OlmoCentre de Recerca Experimental Biomèdica Aplicada (CREBA), IRBLleida, Lleida, Spain.
Sara PuyCentre de Recerca Experimental Biomèdica Aplicada (CREBA), IRBLleida, Lleida, Spain.
Marc BeisaniCentre de Recerca Experimental Biomèdica Aplicada (CREBA), IRBLleida, Lleida, Spain.
Francisca PlanellsCentre de Recerca Experimental Biomèdica Aplicada (CREBA), IRBLleida, Lleida, Spain.
Alba BoldóCentre de Recerca Experimental Biomèdica Aplicada (CREBA), IRBLleida, Lleida, Spain.
Jaime Ruiz-TovarFundación Jiménez Díaz (IIS-FJD), "Rey Juan Carlos" University Hospital and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, Madrid, Spain.
Manuel DuránFundación Jiménez Díaz (IIS-FJD), "Rey Juan Carlos" University Hospital and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, Madrid, Spain.
Damián García-OlmoDepartment of general and Digestive Surgery, Fundación Jiménez-Díaz University Hospital and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria (IIS-FJD), Madrid, Spain.
Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida · ESHospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe abdomen is the second most common source of sepsis and secondary peritonitis, which likely lead to death. In the present study, we hypothesized that instillation of local anesthetics into the peritoneum might mitigate the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the open abdomen when combined with negative-pressure therapy (NPT) to treat severe peritonitis.

methodsWe performed a study in 21 pigs applying a model of sepsis based on ischemia/reperfusion and fecal spread into the peritoneum. The pigs were randomized into three groups, and treated for 6 h as follows: Group A: temporary abdominal closure with ABTHERA™ Open Abdomen Negative-Pressure Therapy; Group B: temporary abdominal closure with ABTHERA™ Open Abdomen Negative-Pressure Therapy plus abdominal instillation with physiological saline solution (PSS); and Group C: temporary abdominal closure with ABTHERA™ Open Abdomen Negative-Pressure Therapy plus peritoneal instillation with a solution of ropivacaine in PPS.

resultsA comparison between the three groups revealed no statistically significant difference for any of the parameters registered (p > 0.05), i.e., intra-abdominal pressure, blood pressure, heart rate, O

conclusionsThe use of abdominal instillation (with or without ropivacaine) did not change the effect of 6 h of NPT after sepsis in animals with open abdomen. The absence of adverse effects suggests that longer treatments should be tested.

Indexed as

Negative-Pressure Wound TherapyPeritonitisSepsisAbdomenAnimalsRopivacaineSwineRopivacaineInstillationNegative-pressure therapyPeritonitisSepsisSeptic open abdomenTemporary abdominal closure

Identifiers

PMID31641785
OpenAlexW2981686443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.