ArticleCureus2020
Utilizing Closed Incisional Negative Pressure Therapy Reduces Peripheral Bypass Infection Rates Without Increasing Costs.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe evaluated outcomes of closed incisional negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) on surgical site infection (SSI) rates in lower extremity bypass patients. We sought to determine whether or not the routine use of ciNPT is a cost-effective measure.
methodsDuring a period from May 2018 to August 2018, our institution transitioned to the routine use of ciNPT for re-vascularization procedures. We retrospectively reviewed our outcomes before and after the initiation of ciNPT. Group A included patients from September 2017 to April 2018 without ciNPT and Group B included patients from September 2018 to April 2019 with ciNPT. Chi-squared analysis was performed and the p value was set at <0.05 to obtain statistical significance. Cost analysis was separately performed utilizing hospital metrics.
resultsThere were a total of 102 patients in Group A and 113 patients in Group B. There was no difference in demographic information between the two groups. The overall SSI rate for Group A was 11.8% (12/102). Group B had an overall SSI rate of 3.5% (4/113; p=0.02). Deep infection rate for Group A was 7% (7/102) and for Group B was 1% (1/113; p=0.01). Cost analysis demonstrated a minimum of $62,000 in infection-related cost savings between both groups.
conclusionsciNPT has had a profound effect on our practice and has resulted in a decrease in both deep and superficial infections. This has led to a significant cost-effective measure for our institution. We now routinely use ciNPT on all lower extremity bypass patients.
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.