ArticleInternational wound journal2024
Comparative study on wound healing and infection between open and minimally invasive surgical methods in pediatric otolaryngology surgery.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- RETRACTION: Comparative Study on Wound Healing and Infection Between Open and Minimally Invasive Surgical Methods in Pediatric Otolaryngology Surgery.International wound journal · 2025Article
- Comparative study on wound healing and infection between open and minimally invasive surgical methods in pediatric otolaryngology surgery.International wound journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pediatric otolaryngology surgeries are crucial interventions requiring careful consideration of surgical methods to optimize outcomes. The choice between open and minimally invasive surgical approaches in this context warrants thorough investigation. While both methods aim to address ear, nose, and throat conditions in children, a comparative study assessing their impact on crucial factors such as intraoperative parameters, wound healing, complications, and postoperative pain is essential. This study aims to compare the effects of open and minimally invasive surgical methods on wound healing and infection in pediatric otolaryngology surgery, and provide a scientific basis for the selection of surgical methods. Two groups of patients were selected, with 90 people in each group. One group received open surgery and the other received minimally invasive surgery. Recording the intraoperative time, anesthesia time, and intraoperative blood loss; the number of days required for wound healing; the occurrence of wound-related complications; the comparison of pain on postoperative Days 1, 3, and 7; and the factors influencing postoperative wound healing were analyzed. In the minimally invasive surgery group, the intraoperative time was shorter, the anesthesia time was relatively reduced, and the amount of bleeding was significantly reduced. Wounds also take fewer days to heal and have lower rates of wound-related complications. When comparing the pain on 1, 3, and 7 days after surgery, the minimally invasive surgery group had relatively mild pain. Analysis of postoperative wound healing factors showed that minimally invasive surgical methods have a positive impact on healing. In pediatric otolaryngology surgery, minimally invasive surgery performs better than open surgery in terms of intraoperative operation time, anesthesia time, blood loss, wound healing time, complication rate, and postoperative pain. Therefore, minimally invasive surgery may be a safer and more effective surgical 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.