ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2024
Treatment of pressure ulcers in patients with spinal cord injury: Conventional surgery vs. cellular therapy.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical trial landscape of cell therapy for spinal cord injury: from integrated practices to future developments.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Advancements in cell-based therapies for the treatment of pressure injuries: A systematic review of interventional studies.Journal of tissue engineeringReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextRelapse and recurrence rates of pressure injuries (PIs) are very high in spinal cord injured patients. That is the reason why alternative therapies, such the stem cells derived from bone marrow, have been developed.
objectiveTo compare this new technique of infiltration-infusion of mononuclear cells from bone marrow with conventional surgery.
designA retrospective study was carried out in patients with spinal cord injuries who had PIs, category III/IV, in the pelvic area, during a 14-year follow-up period.
settingOne group was treated with conventional surgery and, in the other group, mononuclear cells were infused.
participantsOne hundred and forty-nine patients were registered, 63 (42.3%) in the conventional surgery group and 86 (57.7%) in the mononuclear cell group.
resultsA comparative study between these 2 groups was carried out. There were no significant differences in ulcer healing in the first 6 months, but 6 months and one-year post-treatment, they were found. At 6 months, no patient in the conventional surgery group showed dehiscence or fistulization of the wound and, one year after surgery, only 3.17% recurred in the conventional group. In addition, there was a statistically significant relationship between days of hospitalization and the type of bacterial contamination and the intervention group.
conclusionBone marrow mononuclear cell infusion-infiltration is an alternative treatment for PIs and fistula during the first 6 months, instead of conventional surgery. However, in the medium-long term, conventional surgery is more effective.
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.