Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35088145›Full record

SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2022

The effect of intraoperative wound protector use on the risk of surgical site infections in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Karim Hassan, Sumera Baloch, Elsie Jia Zhi Tan, James Chamberlain, Ahsan Ashfaq, Jigar Shah, Shahin Hajibandeh, Shahab Hajibandeh

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Low-cost wound protector for laparoscopic surgeries.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2024
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Karim HassanDepartment of General Surgery, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Wrexham, UK.
Sumera BalochDepartment of General Surgery, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Wrexham, UK.
Elsie Jia Zhi TanDepartment of General Surgery, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Wrexham, UK.
James ChamberlainDepartment of General Surgery, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Wrexham, UK.
Ahsan AshfaqDepartment of General Surgery, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Wrexham, UK.
Jigar ShahDepartment of General Surgery, North Manchester Care Organisation, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Shahin HajibandehHepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Shahab HajibandehDepartment of General Surgery, Cwm Taf University Health Board, Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Pontyclun, UK. shahab_hajibandeh@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3294-4335
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board · GBQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GBNorth Manchester General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo evaluate the effect of intraoperative wound protectors on the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.

methodsIn compliance with PRISMA statement standards, electronic databases were searched to identify all studies comparing wound protector use with no wound protector use in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. SSI (superficial or deep) was considered primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome measures included superficial SSI, deep SSI, and organ-space SSI. Random effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE system.

resultsA total of 12159 patients from four studies were included. The included populations in both groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. The use of wound protector was associated with lower risk of superficial or deep SSI (OR: 0.55, 95% CI 0.43-0.70, P<0.00001), superficial SSI (OR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.76, P<0.0001), and organ-space SSI (OR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.90, P=0.0002). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of the risk of deep SSI (OR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.43-1.06, P=0.09) although this may be subject to type 2 error.

conclusionsThe results of current study suggests that the use of intraoperative wound protector during pancreatoduodenectomy may reduce the risk of postoperative SSI. The quality of the available evidence is moderate with high certainty. While evidence from future randomised controlled trials could increase the robustness of our conclusions, we do not hesitate to recommend the use of wound protectors during pancreatoduodenectomy based on the current evidence.

Indexed as

PancreaticoduodenectomySurgical Wound InfectionHumansPancreatoduodenectomyWound infectionsWound protector

Identifiers

PMID35088145
OpenAlexW4210722925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.