ArticleCureus2021
Closed-Incision Negative Pressure Wound management Following Midline Laparotomy in Gynecological Oncology Operations: A Feasibility Pilot Study.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a cause of considerable morbidity and mortality in healthcare. Increasingly, closed-incision negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) is being studied as a potential method of reducing incidence of SSI with conflicting results in the literature. Few studies however have looked at its use in the field of gynecological oncology. Objectives We aimed to compare the incidence of SSI when using ciNPWT dressings versus conventional dressings in gynecological oncology patients undergoing midline laparotomies. Methods This was a pilot study involving 14 patients receiving the ciNPWT dressing and 26 control patients. All patients were followed up for a period of 30 days. We used the American College of Surgeons (ACS) risk calculator to estimate each patient's risk of SSI in order to risk stratify the groups. Results The incidence of wound infection was 21% (3/14) in the ciNPWT group and 23% (6/26) in the control group (p=0.886). The ciNPWT group was found to be at significantly higher risk for SSI as calculated by the ACS tool (8.8% ciNPWT, 6% control, p=0.004). After stratifying for this difference in risk, still no significant difference in incidence of SSI was found between the two groups (27% (3/11) ciNPWT, 29% (2/7) control p=0.929). Conclusion The incidence of SSI does not appear to decrease by the prophylactic use of the closed-incision negative pressure wound dressing.
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.