ArticleUpdates in surgery2025
Clinical impact of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy in DIEP flap breast reconstruction's donor site.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on: "Clinical impact of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy in DIEP flap breast reconstruction's donor site".Updates in surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The donor-site wound from deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction differs from abdominoplasty due to higher positioning and tension, potentially affecting healing. Closed-incision negative-pressure therapy has been proposed to improve wound healing and reduce complications. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of this tool on donor-site wound's complications and scar-related patient outcomes. This retrospective cohort study included 140 patients who underwent delayed deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction between September 2020 and March 2023. Patients were assigned to Group A (closed-incision negative-pressure therapy) or group B (micropore tape dressings). Both groups received standardized perioperative care. Complications were analyzed, and scar were assessed 1 year postoperatively using SCAR-Q. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics. Wound dehiscence was significantly lower in Group A compared to Group B (p = 0.0003). The mean time to wound healing after dehiscence was similar between groups (p = 0.270). No significant differences were found in other complications, such as infection or hematoma. Concerning SCAR-Q, patients in Group A reported significantly better outcomes on the symptom scale (p = 0.03), whereas no significant differences were observed for appearance or psychosocial impact. Closed-incision negative-pressure therapy reduced the rate of wound dehiscence but did not significantly improve scar quality or other complications. Given the limited benefits and lack of cost-effectiveness data, this tool should be considered for further study rather than routine clinical use in low-risk deep inferior epigastric perforator flap patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40268808What 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.