Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32588378›Full record

SynthesisIrish journal of medical science2021

Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy for closed laparotomy wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Patrick Anthony Boland, Michael E Kelly, Noel E Donlon, Jarlath C Bolger, Brian J Mehigan, Paul H McCormick, John O Larkin

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Irish journal of medical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Patrick Anthony BolandDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, St James's Hospital, Dublin, 8, Ireland. patrick.boland.1@ucdconnect.ie.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5844-7695
Michael E KellyDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, St James's Hospital, Dublin, 8, Ireland.
Noel E DonlonDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, St James's Hospital, Dublin, 8, Ireland.
Jarlath C BolgerDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, St James's Hospital, Dublin, 8, Ireland.
Brian J MehiganDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, St James's Hospital, Dublin, 8, Ireland.
Paul H McCormickDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, St James's Hospital, Dublin, 8, Ireland.
John O LarkinDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, St James's Hospital, Dublin, 8, Ireland.
St. James's Hospital · IESt. Patrick's Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgical site infections are a common source of post-operative morbidity and contribute significantly to healthcare costs. Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and/or bowel surgery are particularly at risk. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been shown to reduce wound infection. However, to date, there has been a lack of consensus around its use for closed laparotomy wounds. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing the use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy with standard dressings for closed laparotomy incisions. The primary outcome was incidence of incisional surgical site infection (SSI) at 30 days post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included superficial and deep SSI, skin dehiscence, fascial dehiscence and length of stay. A total of 2182 publications were identified, of which, following review of titles, abstracts and full texts, five studies met the criteria for inclusion. Across these studies, 467 patients were randomised to NPWT and 464 to standard dressings. Overall SSI rate was 18.6% (n = 87/467) versus 23.9% (n = 111/464) in the NPWT and standard dressing groups, respectively (Odds ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.99, p = 0.04*). Deep SSI incidence was the same in both groups (2.6%). Both skin dehiscence and fascial dehiscence were slightly higher in the standard dressing group ((4.2%, n = 11/263 versus 3.1% (n = 8/261) and (0.9% (n = 3/324) versus 0.6% (n = 2/323)), respectively. This study observed that NPWT reduces the overall SSI for closed laparotomy wounds. It supports data recommending the use of prophylactic NPWT dressings, especially in high-risk patients in both emergency and elective circumstances.

Indexed as

HumansLaparotomyMiddle AgedNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Wound DehiscenceLaparotomyNegative pressure wound therapySurgical site infectionWound care

Identifiers

PMID32588378
PMCPMC7315908
OpenAlexW3037142424

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.