ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
Antibiotic bone cement combined with vacuum sealing drainage effectively repairs sacrococcygeal pressure ulcer.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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.
- Discovery and Mechanistic Elucidation of Glycyrrhizic Acid Composite Gel in Promoting Wound Healing: A Modernized Study Based on Shengji Yuhong Ointment.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Consensus on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Adult Necrotizing Fasciitis (2025 Edition).Burns & trauma · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of antibiotic bone cement combined with the vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) technique for repairing sacrococcygeal pressure ulcer wounds.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 136 patients treated at Yantai Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical College between May 2020 and June 2022. The cases were devided into a control group and a study group according to their treatment regimen. Indicators of postoperative recovery including blood routine recovery time, hospital stay, antibiotic application time, and healing time were compared between the two groups. Before the procedure and 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours following the operation, the pain levels of patients in both groups were examined using a visual analogue scale (VAS). On the 3rd, 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days of treatment, the pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH) was used to measure the pressure ulcer area between the two groups. On the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days following treatment, the capillary density values were compared between the two groups, along with the levels of interleukin-1β (IL-1β), interleukin-12 (IL-12), and c-reactive protein (CRP). The proportions of immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels, CD3+, CD4+, and CD8+ T cell subsets, as well as CD4+/CD8+ ratio, were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe blood routine recovery time, hospital stays, antibiotic usage duration, and healing time were all significantly shorter in the study group compared to those in the control group (all
conclusionThe combination of antibiotic bone cement and VSD is effective in enhancing recovery, reducing pain and inflammation, and improving immune response in the treatment of sacrococcygeal pressure ulcers.
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.