Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33236842›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2021

Incisional negative pressure wound therapy to reduce perineal wound infection after abdominoperineal resection.

Tomoaki Kaneko, Kimihiko Funahashi, Mitstunori Ushigome, Satoru Kagami, Mayu Goto, Takamaru Koda, Akiharu Kurihara

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Tomoaki KanekoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Toho University Omori Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Kimihiko FunahashiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Toho University Omori Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5158-9378
Mitstunori UshigomeDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Toho University Omori Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Satoru KagamiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Toho University Omori Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Mayu GotoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Toho University Omori Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Takamaru KodaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Toho University Omori Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Akiharu KuriharaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Toho University Omori Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Toho University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We explored the effects of incisional negative pressure wound therapy in perineal wound infections after abdominoperineal resection. We retrospectively evaluated 146 patients who underwent abdominal perineal resection from December 2004 to December 2019 and compared conventional gauze dressing (controls) with incisional negative pressure wound therapy. We compared patients' characteristics, surgical factors, and perineal infection rates between groups, and patients' characteristics, surgical factors, and negative pressure therapy use between perineal infection vs non-infection groups, as well as the risk factors for perineal infections. In the negative pressure therapy group, compared with controls, the number of men, smoking prevalence, blood transfusion, drainage via the perineal wound, and intraoperative blood loss were significantly lower (p < 0.05, p < 0.05, p < 0.05, p < 0.001, p < 0.01, respectively), and operation time was significantly longer (p < 0.05). Infections were significantly less common in the negative pressure group (p < 0.05). In the univariate analysis, the infection-positive group had significantly higher laparoscopic surgery (p < 0.01) and negative pressure wound therapy-free rates (p < 0.01), and significantly more intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis using these three factors and preoperative radiotherapy showed that incisional negative pressure wound therapy-free status was a risk factor for infection. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy was beneficial in managing perineal wound infections after abdominoperineal resection.

Indexed as

Negative-Pressure Wound TherapyProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerineumRetrospective StudiesSurgical Wound Infection

Identifiers

PMID33236842
PMCPMC7948915
OpenAlexW3109300604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.