SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2023
Negative pressure wound management in perineal wound status post abdominoperineal resection and extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2023. 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Negative-pressure wound therapy for perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection/extralevator APR: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring the risk factors for perineal wound infection after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Effectiveness and outcome of gracilis muscle flap reconstruction following perineal surgery: a retrospective single-center cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy with Prevena™ to prevent perineal surgical site infection.Surgery today · 2025Article
- Closed-Incision Negative Pressure Therapy: Scoping Review and Multidisciplinary Consensus Recommendations of the Spanish Observatory of Infection in Surgery.International wound journal · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRecent evidence-based publications disclosed that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may reduce the incidence rate of surgical site infection (SSI) and length of stay (LOS) compared with conventional drainage in patient status post abdominoperineal resection (APR) and extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE).
methodsData sources: Eligible randomized controlled trials and retrospective and prospective studies published before January 2023 were retrieved from databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase). STUDY SELECTION: (a) The study involved patients undergoing ELAPE or APR with postoperative NPWT; (b) the study compared NWPT with conventional drainage and reported at least one outcome of interest (i.e., SSI); and (c) the study provided adequate information to calculate the effect estimated for meta-analysis.
interventionsWe calculated the odds ratio (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
main outcome measuresThe measure outcomes included surgical site infection(SSI) and length of stay (LOS).
resultsEight articles, involving 547 patients, met the selection criteria. Compared to conventional drainage, NPWT was associated with a significantly lower SSI rate (fixed effect, OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.18-0.45; I
conclusionNPWT is superior to conventional drainage in both SSI rate and LOS, and the statistical power of SSI and LOS are confirmed by trial sequential analysis.
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.