ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2021
Cost analysis of utilising wound edge protector in open appendicectomy to prevent surgical site infection.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Role of wound protectors in preventing surgical site infection in patients undergoing abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of wound protectors in reducing the incidence of surgical site wound infection in lower gastrointestinal surgery: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- The clinical effectiveness of wound edge protectors in reducing surgical site infection after abdominal surgery: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Impact of Wound Protectors on Complications Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Analysis of 20 960 Patients.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Observational
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rate of surgical site infection (SSI) differ with variable nature with appendicitis with a global incidence of up to 11%. Several randomised trials describe a significant reduction in incisional SSI using wound edge protectors (WEP), mainly in elective procedures. This study was designed to analyse WEP use in emergency open appendicectomy.
methodThis randomised controlled trial enrolled 200 patients who underwent emergency open appendicectomy. Permuted block randomisation was used to assign subjects to either mechanical retraction or double ring WEP. The primary endpoints were SSI rates and cost analysis between the methods.
resultsThe incidence of SSI was similar, n = 7 (7.4%) in the control group and n = 8 (8.4%) in the WEP group, and demonstrates no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). Cost analysis showed a statistically significant (p < 0.001) higher total cost in the WEP group, MYR 456.00 (414.75, 520.00) as compared to the control group, MYR 296.00 (296.00, 300.00). However, the median cost of managing patients complicated with SSI was significantly lower at MYR 750.50 (558.75, 946.50) in the WEP group when compared to the control group MYR 1453.00 (1119.00, 2592.00) (p = 0.008).
conclusionThe use of WEP does not reduce the incisional SSI rate, and it is not cost-effective for application in all open appendicectomies. However, when faced with incisional SSI, the use of WEP had a significantly lower cost in incisional SSI management. Selective WEP use is economical in clinically suspected perforated appendicitis when laparoscopic appendicectomy approach is unsuitable.
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.