ArticleInternational wound journal2022
A bioreactor for studying negative pressure wound therapy on skin grafts.
Article in International wound journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy after open ventral hernia repair: a systematic review meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Full-Thickness Skin Transplantation Combined with Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy for a Refractory Peristomal Large Skin Ulcer Caused by Mucocutaneous Separation: A Case Report.Surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Exploring an Innovative Approach: Integrating Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy with Silver Nanoparticle Dressings in Skin Graft Procedures.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Innervation of an Ultrasound-Mediated PVDF-TrFE Scaffold for Skin-Tissue Engineering.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Roles of negative pressure wound therapy for scar revision.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Review
- A bioreactor for studying negative pressure wound therapy on skin grafts.International wound journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has become the prevailing standard of care for treating complex soft tissue wounds and is now being considered for use in alternative applications including improving skin graft take. While it is generally agreed that negative pressure leads to improved wound healing, universal consensus on its optimal application is not supported in the literature. We describe the design and validation of a bioreactor to determine the prospective benefits of NPWT on skin grafts and engineered skin substitutes (ESS). Clinically relevant pressures were applied, and the native human skin was able to withstand greater negative pressures than the engineered substitutes. Both skin types were cultured under static, flow-only, and -75 mm Hg conditions for 3 days. While it remained intact, there was damage to the epidermal-dermal junction in the ESS after application of negative pressure. The normal skin remained viable under all culture conditions. The engineered skin underwent apoptosis in the flow-only group; however, the application of negative pressure reduced apoptosis. Vascular endothelial growth factor levels were significantly higher in the normal flow-only group, 152.0 ± 75.1 pg/mg protein, than the other culture conditions, 81.6 ± 35.5 pg/mg for the static and 103.6 ± pg/mg for the negative pressure conditions. The engineered skin had a similar trend but the differences were not significant. This bioreactor design can be used to evaluate the impacts of NPWT on the anatomy and physiology of skin to improve outcomes in wounds after grafting with normal or engineered skin.
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.