Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32372159›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of urology2021

Final results of the PräVAC trial: prevention of wound complications following inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer using epidermal vacuum-assisted wound closure.

Sebastian C Schmid, Anna K Seitz, Bernhard Haller, Hans-Martin Fritsche, Toni Huber, Maximilian Burger, Jürgen E Gschwend, Tobias Maurer

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Sebastian C Schmid *Department of Urology, Rechts der Isar Medical Center, Technical University of Munich, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81375, Munich, Germany. sebastian.schmid@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3575-0747
Anna K Seitz *Department of Urology, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Bernhard HallerInstitute of Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Hans-Martin FritscheDepartment of Urology, Universitätsklinikum Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Toni HuberDepartment of Urology, Universitätsklinikum Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Maximilian BurgerDepartment of Urology, Universitätsklinikum Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Jürgen E GschwendDepartment of Urology, Rechts der Isar Medical Center, Technical University of Munich, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81375, Munich, Germany.
Tobias MaurerDepartment of Urology, Rechts der Isar Medical Center, Technical University of Munich, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81375, Munich, Germany.
University Hospital Regensburg · DETUM Klinikum · DETechnical University of Munich · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeInguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer is associated with a high rate of wound complications. The aim of this trial was to prospectively analyze the effect of an epidermal vacuum wound dressing on lymphorrhea, complications and reintervention in patients with inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer. PATIENTS AND

methodsProspective, multicenter, randomized, investigator-initiated study in two German university hospitals (2013-2017). Thirty-one patients with penile cancer and indication for bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection were included and randomized to conventional wound care on one side (CONV) versus epidermal vacuum wound dressing (VAC) on the other side.

resultsA smaller cumulative drainage fluid volume until day 14 (CDF) compared to contralateral side was observed in 15 patients (CONV) vs. 16 patients (VAC), with a median CDF 230 ml (CONV) vs. 415 ml (VAC) and a median maximum daily fluid volume (MDFV) of 80 ml (CONV) vs. 110 ml (VAC). Median time of indwelling drainage: 7 days (CONV) vs. 8 days (VAC). All grade surgery-related complications were seen in 74% patients (CONV) vs. 74% patients (VAC); grade 3 complications in 3 patients (CONV) vs. 6 patients (VAC). Prolonged hospital stay occurred in 32% patients (CONV) vs. 48% patients (VAC); median hospital stay was 11.5 days. Reintervention due to complications occurred in 45% patients (CONV) vs. 42% patients (VAC).

conclusionsIn this prospective, randomized trial we could not observe a significant difference between epidermal vacuum treatment and conventional wound care.

Indexed as

Lymph Node ExcisionNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overHumansInguinal CanalMaleMiddle AgedPenile NeoplasmsPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesSurgical Wound DehiscenceSurgical Wound InfectionVacuumClosed incision negative pressureInguinal surgeryLymphorrheaPenile cancerPraeVac

Identifiers

PMID32372159
PMCPMC7910363
OpenAlexW3022468376

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.