Trial reportSouth African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care2023
Alexis O-ring wound retractor versus traditional metal retractors for the prevention of postcaesarean surgical site infections.
Trial report in South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of wound protectors in preventing surgical site infection in patients undergoing abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Surgical site infections after caesarean section across sub-Sahara Africa: a scoping review of prevalence and associated factors.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of the Ventral Approach to the Canine Hip Joint Using Gelpi Retractors and an Elastic O-Ring Wound Retractor.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostcaesarean surgical site infections (SSI) remain a burden globally. The Alexis® O C-Section Retractor, a plastic sheath retractor known to have decreased incidence of SSIs in gastrointestinal surgery, is yet to have its efficacy established during caesarean section (CS). This study aimed to compare the differences in the rate of postcaesarean surgical wound site infections between the Alexis® retractor and traditional metal retractors during CS at a large tertiary hospital in Pretoria.
methodsPregnant women scheduled for elective CS were prospectively randomised to either the Alexis® retractor group or the traditional metal retractor group at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria between August 2015 and July 2016. The defined primary outcome was development of SSI, and secondary outcomes comprised patients' peri-operative parameters. All participants' wound sites were observed in the hospital for 3 days before discharge and again at 30 days postpartum. Data were analysed using SPSS version 25 with p 0.05 considered significant.
resultsA total of 207 participants were involved, Alexis® (n = 102) and metal retractors (n = 105). None of the participants developed postsurgical site wound infection after 30 days, and there were no differences in time to delivery, total operative time, estimated blood loss or postoperative pain between the two arms of study.
conclusionThe study found no difference in participants' outcomes using the Alexis® retractor in comparison with the traditional metal wound retractors. We suggest that the use of Alexis® retractor be at the surgeon's discretion and its routine use not advised for now.Contribution: This research being the first of its kind in South Africa in which patients' clinical outcomes were compared post caesarean section from Alexis's plastic sheath group and metal retractors group in an attempt to proffer solution to the high burden of SSI. Although no difference was seen at this point, the research was pragmatic, as it was carried out in a setting with high burden of SSI. The study is going to serve as a baseline against which studies carried out in future can be compared.
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.