ArticleInternational wound journal2022
Prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy for gynaecologic malignancies.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional wound care in cancer surgical wounds: A meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials.International wound journal · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- Review
- 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
- Article
- Prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy for gynaecologic malignancies.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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wound complications are an important cause of postoperative morbidity among patients with gynaecologic malignancies. We evaluated whether the placement of closed-incisional negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) at the time of laparotomy for gynaecologic cancer surgery reduced wound complication rates. A retrospective cohort study with primary wound closure performed by a gynaecologic oncologist was carried out. We evaluated two cohorts of patients who underwent surgery in 2017 with standard closure and patients who underwent surgery in 2019 with the placement of prophylactic ciNPT. Postoperative outcomes were examined. A total of 143 patients were included, 85 (59.4%) vs 58 (40.6%) with standard closure and ciNPT, respectively. The total complication rate in our sample was 38.71%. The rate of surgical complications in patients treated with ciNPT was 6.9% compared with 31.8% (P = .000) in patients treated with standard closure. In the analysis of complications, a significant reduction in infections (17.1%), seromas (15.4%), and wound dehiscence (17.1%) were observed when ciNPT was applied. The median hospital stay was 8 vs 6 days in the standard closure vs ciNPT groups (P = .048). The use of the prophylactic ciNPT following a laparotomy may decrease wound complications and hospital stays in oncological patients. ciNPT could be considered as part of clinical practice in patients at high risk of wound complications, such as patients with gynaecological malignancies.
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.