Trial reportUpdates in surgery2025
The efficacy and safety of different negative-pressure wound therapy gradients on flaps outcomes.
Trial report in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06080958 (Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Flap Enhancement), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Flap Enhancement
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been shown to be beneficial for improving the wound healing process and reducing flap complications. However, the ideal NPWT settings, especially the pressure levels and application modes, are still debatable. This study examines the efficacy and safety of NPWT at different pressure gradients, namely, high (HNPWT) and low (LNPWT), to determine the optimal conditions for improving flap outcomes and minimizing complications. Over a 30-month period, 65 patients who underwent flap reconstruction were randomly assigned to three groups: HNPWT (75-125 mmHg, continuous mode), LNPWT (50-75 mmHg, intermittent mode), and conventional wound dressing (CWD). Patients were evaluated prospectively for post-operative complications, flap viability, infection, edema, and wound dehiscence. Complications were more common in the CWD group than in the HNPWT group, while the HNPWT group had the highest incidence of flap ischemia (41%). NPWT significantly reduced post-operative edema (P = 0.003) and lower infection and dehiscence rates than the CWD group (P = 0.015 and P = 0.029, respectively). Compared with HNPWT, LNPWT showed superior safety and efficacy, with fewer ischemic events, lower pain scores, faster wound healing times, and better esthetic and function outcomes. Although NPWT offers benefits over conventional wound dressing in flap reconstructions, pressure settings should be carefully adjusted. LNPWT is safer and has more satisfactory outcomes than HNPWT, with reduced ischemia and better overall healing. These findings suggest that LNPWT in the intermittent mode is most favorable for improving flap viability and minimizing adverse effects.Registration identification number NCT06080958- July 22, 2024. "Retrospectively registered" URL for the registry: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/.
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.