ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of Negative Pressure Dressings for Closed Surgical Incisions in Decreasing Surgical Site Infections After Emergency Laparotomy: A Randomized Controlled Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Negative pressure wound therapy for the prevention of surgical site complications in emergency laparotomies: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2026Pooled it
- Negative-pressure wound therapy in thoracic and abdominal surgery: meta-analysis of randomized trials.BJS open · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressings in emergency laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of negative pressure dressings (NPDs) versus conventional dressings for closed surgical incisions after emergency midline laparotomy, focusing on their impact on surgical site infection (SSI) rates, wound dehiscence, hospital stay duration, and cosmetic outcomes. Methods The randomized controlled study was conducted over 24 months, involving 80 patients aged 18-65 years who had peritonitis and underwent emergency midline laparotomies. Patients with diabetes mellitus, a BMI >35 kg/m², immunocompromised conditions, or those requiring re-exploration within 30 days of surgery were excluded. The participants were randomly assigned into two groups using a computer-generated randomization table: Group A, the case group, consisted of 40 patients who received NPDs, while Group B, the control group, included 40 patients who received conventional dressings. Data were recorded in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0 (Released 2017; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), with a p-value of <0.05 considered statistically significant. Results The overall occurrence of SSIs within the 30-day follow-up period was significantly lower in the NPD group compared to the conventional dressing group (30% vs. 70%, p < 0.05). The mean duration of hospital stay was 14.85 ± 10.43 days for the NPD group and 15.4 ± 9.75 days for the control group, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.712). The mean Vancouver Scar Scale score was 5.3 ± 2.47 in the NPD group and 6.5 ± 2.14 in the control group, also showing no statistically significant difference (p = 0.11). Conclusions NPDs significantly reduced the incidence of SSIs compared to conventional dressings, but they did not have a significant impact on scar cosmesis or the duration of hospital stay.
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.