ArticleUpdates in surgery2021
Prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy for prevention of surgical site infection in abdominal surgery: a nationwide cross-sectional survey.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05455801 (Randomized Study on the Efficacy of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Randomized Study on the Efficacy of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) in the Prevention of Surgical Site Complications
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressings in emergency laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2026Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our objective was to determine current practice in Switzerland regarding the use of pNPWT in abdominal surgery. An online survey was carried out to evaluate the use of pNPWT among abdominal surgeons in Switzerland. One hundred and ten participants replied to the survey from 16.12.2019 to 15.01.2020. Eleven were excluded, leaving 99 responders for analysis. Seventy participants (70.7%) were using pNPWT, 3 (3%) have stopped using it and 26 (26.3%) have never used it. pNPWT was used on midline laparotomy by 63 responders (90%), closed stoma wounds by 21 (30%), closed perineal wounds by 20 (28.6%), Pfannenstiel incisions by 18 (23.7%), groin incisions by 16 (22.9%), subcostal incisions by 13 (18.6%), Mc Burney incisions by 3 (4.3%) and other incisions by 18 (25.7%). Forty-eight participants (68.6%) used pNPWT on less than 10% of patients, 14 (20%) on 10-25% of patients, six (8.6%) on 25-50% of patients and two (2.9%) on 75-100% of patients. Suggestions for improvement to pNPWT were: better sealing, recyclable system, better adaptation to the perineum, smaller device, reduced cost and possibility to check the surgical wound through the dressing. In conclusion, pNPWT is widely used among Swiss surgeons, mostly on midline incisions. However, most of them apply pNPWT on a small proportion of patients only. Suggestions for improvement were a better sealing for complex wounds, reduced cost and possibility to check the wound during the therapy.
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.