ArticleInnovative surgical sciences2020
Intrauterine negative-pressure therapy (IU-NPT) to treat peritonitis after caesarean section.
Article in Innovative surgical sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoluminal Vacuum Therapy Using a New "Fistula Sponge" in Treating Defects of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract-A Comparative, Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- The Role of Open-Pore Film Drainage Systems in Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy: Current Status and Review of the Literature.Visceral medicine · 2024Review
- Endoscopic negative pressure therapy (ENPT) in head and neck surgery: first experiences in treatment of postoperative salivary fistulas and cervical esophageal perforations.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe describe the first application of intrauterine negative-pressure therapy (IU-NPT) for an early rupture of a uterine suture after a third caesarean section with consecutive peritonitis and sepsis. Because all four quadrants were affected by peritonitis, a laparotomy was performed on the 15th day after caesarean section. Abdominal negative-pressure wound therapy (A-NPWT) of the open abdomen was initiated. During the planned relaparotomy, a suture defect of the anterior uterine wall was identified and sutured. In the second relaparotomy, the suture appeared once more insufficient. CASE PRESENTATION: For subsequent IU-NPT, we used an open-pore film drainage (OFD) consisting of a drainage tube wrapped in the double-layered film. The OFD was inserted into the uterine cavity via the uterine defect and IU-NPT was established together with A-NPT. With the next relaparotomy, local inflammation and peritonitis had been resolved completely. IU-NPT was continued transvaginally, the uterine defect was sutured, and the abdomen was closed. Vaginal IU-NPT was also discontinued after another eight days.
conclusionsBy using IU-NPT, local infection control of the septic focus was achieved. The infectious uterine secretions were completely evacuated and no longer discharged into the abdominal cavity. As a result of the applied suction, the uterine cavity collapsed around the inlaid OFD. The total duration of IU-NPT was 11 days. The uterine defect was completely closed, and a hysterectomy was avoided. The patient was discharged four days after the end of IU-NPT. IU-NPT follows the same principles as those described for endoscopic negative-pressure wound therapy of the gastrointestinal tract.
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.