ArticlePloS one2023
Effects of different sponge implantation methods of negative pressure wound therapy on wound healing of deep surgical site infection after spinal surgery.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy in treating deep surgical site infections after spine surgery: a meta-analysis of single-arm studies.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Investigating the efficacy of vacuum sealing drainage versus traditional negative pressure drainage in treating deep incision infections following posterior cervical internal fixation-a retrospective cohort study.European journal of medical research · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAfter spinal surgery, negative pressure wound treatment (NPWT) improves deep surgical site infection (DSSI) wound healing. This research compared the healing benefits of two sponge implantation strategies in NPWT for DSSI.
methods21 patients with DSSI utilized NPWT to improve wound healing following spine surgery were followed from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2021. After antibiotic treatment failure, all these patients with DSSI received extensive debridement and NPWT. They are grouped by sponge placement method: centripetal reduction and segment reduction. The two groups' hospital stays, NPWT replacement frequency, wound healing time, healing speed, and quality of wound healing (POSAS score) were compared.
resultsAll patients had been cured by the end of December 2022, and the mean follow-up time was 57.48 ± 29.6 months. Surgical incision length did not vary across groups (15.75±7.61 vs. 15.46±7.38 cm, P = 0.747). The segmental reduction approach had shorter hospital stay and NPWT treatment times than the centripetal reduction method (39.25±16.04 vs. 77.38±37.24 days, P = 0.027). Although there is no statistically significant difference, the mean wound healing duration of segmental reduction group is faster than that of centripetal reduction group (0.82±0.39 vs 0.45±0.28 cm/d, P = 0.238), wound healing quality (POSAS) (33.54±8.63 vs 48.13±12.17, P = 0.408) is better in segmental reduction group, and NPWT replacement frequency (2.62 ± 1.04 vs 3.88 ± 1.25, P < .915) is smaller in segmental reduction group.
conclusionsNPWT heals wounds and controls infection. Segmental reduction method accelerates wound healing, reduces hospital stay, and improves wound quality compared to central reduction method.
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.