ReviewJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2022
The use of negative pressure wound therapy for fracture-related infections following internal osteosynthesis of the extremity: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Treatment strategies for fracture-related infections with concurrent soft tissue damage].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Key aspects of soft tissue management in fracture-related infection: recommendations from an international expert group.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Review
- Acute prophylactic antibiotic nailing of open femoral shaft fractures for prevention of fracture-related infection.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2024Article
- Complications of the surgical treatment of fractures of the tibial plateau: prevalence, causes, and management.EFORT open reviews · 2022Review
- Effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy: Minimum five-year follow-up and review of the literature.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2022Review
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to systematically review the current literature on studies using negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) or dressings following fracture-related infection (FRI) in internal osteosynthesis of the extremity. Articles were analyzed on fracture and wound healing and included when comparing or describing the use of either NPWT or dressings in FRI. We conducted a systematic literature search in four electronic databases: Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus. The studies were screened by two authors using Covidence.org and evaluated for risk of bias. A total of 8576 records were identified. No articles compared NPWT to dressings. Seven case reports and three case series included a total of 115 patients treated for FRI. Fracture healing was achieved in 21 out of 67 patients treated with NPWT (4 amputations and 46 not described) and all 48 patients in the dressing group (4 patients needed additional sequestrectomy procedures). Five studies did not describe fracture healing. In 57 out of 67 patients treated with NPWT, the wounds were described as healed, closed, or requiring soft tissue reconstruction (4 amputations and six lacking description). The dressing group had complete wound coverage in 18 patients and partial coverage in 30 patients. Studies were generally at high risk of bias because of insufficient descriptions of both patient demographics and outcomes. No studies compared NPWT to dressings, and the existing literature is at high risk of bias. The included studies were of low-level evidence. NPWT can be neither recommended nor advised against to cover infected osteosynthesis.
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.