Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34905941›Full record

ArticleBone & joint open2021

Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressings following soft-tissue sarcoma excision: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

David W Shields, Nima Razii, James Doonan, Ashish Mahendra, Sanjay Gupta

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07048184 (Sarcoma Surgery Wound Complications Comparing Usual Versus Negative Pressure Dressing), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07048184 phase2not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Sarcoma Surgery Wound Complications Comparing Usual Versus Negative Pressure Dressing: a Randomised Phase II Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNHS Greater Glasgow and ClydeRan2025 to 2027Enrolled94ConditionsSarcoma, Negative Pressure Therapy, Wound ComplicationArmsNegative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) Dressings, Standard Absorbent Dressings
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

David W ShieldsDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Nima RaziiDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
James DoonanDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Ashish MahendraDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Sanjay GuptaDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe primary objective of this study was to compare the postoperative infection rate between negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and conventional dressings for closed incisions following soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) surgery. Secondary objectives were to compare rates of adverse wound events and functional scores.

methodsIn this prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial (RCT), patients were randomized to either NPWT or conventional sterile occlusive dressings. A total of 17 patients, with a mean age of 54 years (21 to 81), were successfully recruited and none were lost to follow-up. Wound reviews were undertaken to identify any surgical site infection (SSI) or adverse wound events within 30 days. The Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score were recorded as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

resultsThere were two out of seven patients in the control group (28.6%), and two out of ten patients in the intervention group (20%) who were diagnosed with a SSI (p > 0.999), while one additional adverse wound event was identified in the control group (p = 0.593). No significant differences in PROMs were identified between the groups at either 30 days (TESS, p = 0.987; MSTS, p = 0.951) or six-month (TESS, p = 0.400) follow-up. However, neoadjuvant radiotherapy was significantly associated with a SSI within 30 days of surgery, across all patients (p = 0.029). The mean preoperative modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) was also significantly higher among patients who developed a postoperative adverse wound event (p = 0.028), including a SSI (p = 0.008), across both groups.

conclusionThis is the first RCT comparing NPWT with conventional dressings following musculoskeletal tumour surgery. Postoperative wound complications are common in this group of patients and we observed an overall SSI rate of 23.5%. We propose proceeding to a multicentre trial, which will help more clearly define the role of closed incision NPWT in STS surgery. Cite this article:

Indexed as

DressingsMusculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoremusculoskeletal tumour surgeryMusculoskeletal tumour surgeryNegative pressure wound therapyNegative Pressure Wound Therapypostoperative infectionsradiotherapyrandomized controlled trialSoft tissue sarcomasoft tissue sarcomasSurgical site infectionsurgical site infections (SSIs)Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS)Wound complicationswounds

Identifiers

PMID34905941
PMCPMC8711667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.