ReviewEFORT open reviews2022
Incisional negative pressure wound therapy to reduce surgical-site infections in major limb amputations: a meta-analysis.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Surgical site infection following incisional negative pressure wound therapy in lower limb amputation closure: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Case Report: Winkelmann hip rotationplasty as a last-resort solution.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) has shown effectiveness in the treatment of high-risk surgical wounds. Especially patients with diabetes-induced peripheral arterial disease undergoing major limb amputation have a high intrinsic risk for post-surgical wound infections. While normal gauze wound dressings do not cause stimulation of microvasculature, iNPWT might improve wound healing and reduce wound complications. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature for rates of wound complications and readmissions, as well as post-surgical 30-day mortality. Methods: We conducted a systematic review searching the Cochrane, PubMed, and Ovid databases. Inclusion criteria were the modified Coleman methodology Score >60, non-traumatic major limb amputation, and adult patients. Traumatic amputations and animal studies were excluded. Relevant articles were reviewed independently by referring to the title and abstract. In a meta-analysis, we compared 3 studies and 457 patients. Results: A significantly overall lower rate of postoperative complications is associated with usage of iNPWT (odds ratio (OR) = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.89; P = 0.02). There was no significant improvement for 30-day mortality, when iNPWT was used (OR= 081; 95% CI: 0.46 - 1.45; P = 0.48). Nevertheless, we did not note a significant difference in the readmission rate or revision surgery between the two groups. Conclusion: Overall, the usage of iNPWT may reduce the risk of postoperative wound complications in major lower limb amputations but does not improve 30-day mortality rates significantly. However, to anticipate surgical-site infection, iNPWT has shown effectiveness and thus should be used whenever applicable.
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.