Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38115832›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023

Prophylactic Use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in High-risk Patients Undergoing Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery.

Raghavan Vidya, Muskaan Khosla, Kim Baek, R Vinayagam, Dinesh Thekkinkattil, Siobhan Laws, Stergios Douvetzemis, Tapan Sircar, Amulya Mullapudi, John Murphy

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07607366 (Is Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Associated With a Decreased Risk of Postoperative Seroma in Breast Cancer Patients Who Have Undergone Mastectomy?), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07607366 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Is Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Associated With a Decreased Risk of Postoperative Seroma in Breast Cancer Patients Who Have Undergone Mastectomy?

TypeinterventionalSponsorDalarna County Council, SwedenRan2025 to 2027Enrolled76ConditionsBreast Cancer - FemaleArmsPICO negative pressure wound therapy by Smith and Nephew
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Raghavan VidyaFrom The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, U.K.
Muskaan KhoslaFrom The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, U.K.
Kim BaekSt. James's University Hospital, Leeds, U.K.
R VinayagamWirral Breast Centre, Clatterbridge Hospital, Wirral, U.K.
Dinesh ThekkinkattilLincoln Breast Unit, Lincoln County Hospital, Lincoln, U.K.
Siobhan LawsRoyal Hampshire County Hospital, Hampshire, U.K.
Stergios DouvetzemisGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, U.K.
Tapan SircarFrom The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, U.K.
Amulya MullapudiFrom The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, U.K.
John MurphyNightingale Breast Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has emerged as an adjunct to reduce wound complication rates in many surgical domains. This study investigated the prophylactic use of PICO NPWT in high-risk patients undergoing oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery. Methods: This was a prospective multicenter national audit. The findings were compared against Association of Breast Surgery/British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (ABS/BAPRAS) Oncoplastic Guidelines for best practice. Results: Data from 267 patients were included from seven centers. All patients had at least one high-risk factor for postoperative wound complications, whereas 78 patients (29.2%) had more than one. Thirty-six patients (13.5%) developed postoperative wound complications. An estimated 16 (6%) developed skin flap necrosis, wound dehiscence occurred in 13 patients (4.9%), and 15 patients (5.6%) developed postoperative wound infection. Eleven patients (4.1%) required further surgery due to wound complications. In total, 158 patients underwent mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction. Postoperative wound complication rate was comparable in this subgroup (n = 22; 13.9%). Implant loss rate was 3.8%, which was within the 5% target mentioned in the ABS/BAPRAS guidelines. The estimated total cost saving was US $105,600 (£84,613) and US $395.50 (£316.90) per patient. Wound infection rate (5.6%) was much lower than the 25% reported by both iBRA study and National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit. Conclusions: Our study suggests that prophylactic use of NPWT in oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery results in low rates of wound-related complications with associated healthcare cost benefits in patients with high-risk factors for wound-related complications. However, a prospective randomized control trial is required.

Identifiers

PMID38115832
PMCPMC10730037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.