Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31666831›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medicine and life

Comparison of negative-pressure incision management system in wound dehiscence: A prospective, randomized, observational study.

Mehmet Ali Gök, Mehmet Tolga Kafadar, Serkan Fatih Yeğen

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medicine and life. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mehmet Ali GökClinic of General Surgery, Health Sciences University, Derince Training and Research Hospital, Kocaeli, Turkey.
Mehmet Tolga KafadarClinic of General Surgery, Health Sciences University, Mehmet Akif İnan Training and Research Hospital, Şanlıurfa, Turkey.
Serkan Fatih YeğenClinic of General Surgery, Ali Osman Sönmez Oncology Hospital, Bursa, Turkey.
Kocaeli Üniversitesi · TRSağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi · TRŞanlıurfa Mehmet Akif İnan Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wound dehiscence is a significant problem faced by surgeons after major abdominal surgery. In this study, it was aimed to select the best incision management system to keep the incision edges together and prevent wound opening, and infection by protecting the incision. In this study, 60 patients who underwent abdominal surgery were evaluated regarding their risk of wound dehiscence. In our clinic, high-risk cases of abdominal surgery are performed, the risk factors being ischemia along the incision line, dirty and contaminated wound, obesity, tension on the suture line, traumatization of the wound site, age at onset (> 65), body mass index (BMI) > 30, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), immunosuppressive drug users. A prospective study protocol was planned after ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status class assignment. Patients were divided into three groups: patients who underwent a postoperative negative-pressure therapy dressing, patients who underwent subcutaneous aspiration drainage, and patients who received standard dressing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the decompensation, surgical site infection, seroma, hospital stay and costs and to evaluate the results in the postoperative period. Sixty patients were randomized (n = 20, for each group). Thirty-one (51%) of the patients were male, and the mean age was 64.3 ± 8.9 (46-85). The mean BMI was 30.45 ± 7.2. There was no statistically significant difference (p≥0.05) between groups in terms of sex, age, and BMI. The ASA score and surgical interventions were similar between the groups. Wound dehiscence rate was 25% (n = 8), 20% (n = 6) and 3% (n = 1) for the Standard Dressing (SD), Aspiration Drainage (AD) and Negative-Pressure (NP) groups, respectively (p <0.017). Duration of hospitalization was 16.45 ± 6.6, 14.3 ± 7.4 and 8.95 ± 2.8 days (p <0.001) for SD, AD and NP groups, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups regarding other variables (p≥0.05 for all variables). Negative-pressure wound treatment is an easy, fast and practical technique which reduces lateral tension and swelling. It provides perfusion support and helps to protect the surgical field against external sources of infection.

Indexed as

Negative-Pressure Wound TherapyAgedBandagesBody Mass IndexC-Reactive ProteinFemaleHumansLength of StayLeukocyte CountMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRisk FactorsSurgical Wound DehiscenceC-Reactive Proteinnegative-pressure wound treatmentSurgical site infectionwound dehiscence

Identifiers

PMID31666831
PMCPMC6814883
OpenAlexW2983927631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.