Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36228111›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2022

Reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers.

Gill Norman, Jason Kf Wong, Kavit Amin, Jo C Dumville, Susy Pramod

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gill NormanDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Jason Kf WongBlond McIndoe Laboratories, Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medical and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Kavit AminBlond McIndoe Laboratories, Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medical and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Jo C DumvilleDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Susy PramodThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are several possible interventions for managing pressure ulcers (sometimes referred to as pressure injuries), ranging from pressure-relieving measures, such as repositioning, to reconstructive surgery. The surgical approach is usually reserved for recalcitrant wounds (where the healing process has stalled, or the wound is not responding to treatment) or wounds with full-thickness skin loss and exposure of deeper structures such as muscle fascia or bone. Reconstructive surgery commonly involves wound debridement followed by filling the wound with new tissue. Whilst this is an accepted means of ulcer management, the benefits and harms of different surgical approaches, compared with each other or with non-surgical treatments, are unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2016.

objectivesTo assess the effects of different types of reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers (category/stage II or above), compared with no surgery or alternative reconstructive surgical approaches, in any care setting. SEARCH

methodsWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed reconstructive surgery in the treatment of pressure ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted study data, assessed the risk of bias and undertook GRADE assessments. We would have involved a third review author in case of disagreement. MAIN

resultsWe identified one RCT conducted in a hospital setting in the USA. It enrolled 20 participants aged between 20 and 70 years with stage IV ischial or sacral pressure ulcers (involving full-thickness skin and tissue loss). The study compared two reconstructive techniques for stage IV pressure ulcers: conventional flap surgery and cone of pressure flap surgery, in which a large portion of the flap tip is de-epithelialised and deeply inset to obliterate dead space. There were no clear data for any of our outcomes, although we extracted some information on complete wound healing, wound dehiscence, pressure ulcer recurrence and wound infection. We graded the evidence for these outcomes as very low-certainty. The study provided no data for any other outcomes. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCurrently there is very little randomised evidence on the role of reconstructive surgery in pressure ulcer management, although it is considered a priority area. More rigorous and robust research is needed to explore this intervention.

Indexed as

Plastic Surgery ProceduresPressure UlcerAdultAgedDebridementHumansMiddle AgedWound HealingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID36228111
PMCPMC9562145
OpenAlexW4306147532

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.