ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2024
Efficacy of modified vacuum-assisted dressing versus conventional betadine dressing in wound healing of open fractures.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Letter to Editor on "Efficacy of modified vacuum-assisted dressing versus conventional betadine dressing in wound healing of open fractures".Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2024Article
- Comprehensive management of severe crush injury in a pediatric patient: A case report.Trauma case reports · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of a customized vacuum-assisted dressing to traditional betadine dressings for wounds in open fractures. Materials and methods: In this prospective comparative study, 30 patients from two groups-group A receiving V.A.C. while group B receiving traditional dressing-were given data from sixty participants with open fractures. Wound was evaluated on days 0, 3, 7, 11, and 15 of the study. Results: In group A, there was a statistically significant decrease in the mean dimension of the wound overall (15.66 mm vs. 7.4 mm in group B), and it took an average of 9.83 days for healthy granulation tissue to emerge. In contrast to the 21 patients who had split skin grafting, five patients needed a flap as a final closure surgery. In group B, it took an average of 17 days for healthy granulation tissue to emerge. The authors used split skin grafting to close the wounds in 18 patients, and the wound was allowed to heal by secondary intention in 8 patients, while the flap was used in 4 patients. Conclusion: On comparing the modified Vacuum-assisted dressing to the standard dressing, there was considerable wound contraction and accelerated healing. Therefore, the authors observed that vacuum-assisted dressing treatment is superior to traditional betadine dressing in open fractures.
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.