Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35641440›Full record

Trial reportWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society2022

Effectiveness of a fluid immersion simulation system in the acute post-operative management of pressure ulcers: A prospective, randomised controlled trial.

Chitang J Joshi, Miguel Carabano, Laura C Perez, Peter Ullrich, Abbas M Hassan, Rou Wan, Jing Liu, Rachna Soriano, Robert D Galiano

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effectiveness of a fluid immersion simulation system in the acute post-operative management of pressure ulcers: A prospective, randomised controlled trial.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2022
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chitang J JoshiDivision of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6725-334X
Miguel CarabanoDivision of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Laura C PerezDivision of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Peter UllrichDivision of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abbas M HassanDivision of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Rou WanDivision of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9029-4721
Jing LiuDivision of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Rachna SorianoDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Robert D GalianoDivision of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Northwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The fluid immersion simulation system (FIS) has demonstrated good clinical applicability. This is the first study to compare surgical flap closure outcomes of FIS with an air-fluidised bed (AFB), considered as standard of care. The success of closure after 14 days post-op was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were incidences of complications in the first 2 weeks after surgery and the rate of acceptability of the device. Thirty-eight subjects were in the FIS group while 42 subjects were placed in the AFB group. Flap failure rate was similar between groups (14% vs. 12%; p = 0.84). Complications, notably dehiscence and maceration, were significantly higher in the FIS group (40% vs. 17%; p = 0.0296). The addition of a microclimate regulation device (ClimateCare®) to FIS for the last 43 patients showed a significant decrease in the rate of flap failure (71% vs. 16%; p = 0.001) and incidence of complications (33% vs. 0%; p = 0.011). There was no statistically significant difference between the FIS and air-fluidised bed (AFB) in the rate of acceptability (nurse acceptance: 1.49 vs. 1.72; p = 0.8; patient acceptance: 2.08 vs. 2.06; p = 0.17), which further illustrates the potential implementation of this tool in a patient-care setting. Our results show that the use of ClimateCare® in combination with FIS can be a better alternative to the AFB in surgical closure of pressure ulcers.

Indexed as

Pressure UlcerHumansImmersionPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesSurgical FlapsWound Healingair fluidised bedClimateCare® surfaceflap closurefluid immersion simulation systempressure ulcer

Identifiers

PMID35641440
PMCPMC9542107
OpenAlexW4281740346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.