ArticlePloS one2025
Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy devices applied after Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03886818 (Evaluation of the Efficacy of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy on Incisional Wound Healing After a Total Ankle Arthroplasty), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Evaluation of the Efficacy of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy on Incisional Wound Healing After a Total Ankle Arthroplasty: a Randomized Study.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA portable, single-use incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (iNPWT) device could be used directly on the wound incision following Total Ankle Arthroplasty (TAA). In order to support local decision-making in a French university hospital for the adoption of such device in this indication, a three-dimensional (clinical, economic and organizational) Hospital Based-Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA) was conducted. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe HB-HTA was based on: a literature review; results from the PICO-PTC single-site randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrial.gov identifier NCT03886818); and semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals.
resultsTwo comparative retrospective cohort studies were retrieved from the literature review. They suggested a decreased incidence of wound healing complications with iNPWT compared to standard dressings, although no difference was found in the PICO-PTC study. There was no significant difference in the PICO-PTC study on Medicine-Surgery-Obstetrics hospital costs between the two strategies: €10,639.65 [CI 95% (7,997.45; 17,988.68)] in the iNPWT group versus €9,672.59 [CI 95% (7,966.29; 13,393.65)] in the standard dressings group. Adoption of this prophylactic strategy would result in an approval to pay a 1.5% supplement to the Medicine-Surgery-Obstetrics hospitalization costs. It could also improve professionals' workflow, and facilitate wound healing monitoring for nurses in orthopedic departments compared to standard dressings.
conclusionThe clinical effectiveness of the iNPWT single-use portable device could not be demonstrated compared to standard dressings for prophylactic use, in terms of the incidence of wound healing complications, in patients scheduled for TAA and not selected on the basis of risk factors. However, as this strategy may bring organizational benefits and has not been associated with significant economic costs, the adoption of iNPWT in orthopedic departments could be made according to the surgeon's clinical expertise, based for instance on the patient's risk factors for complications.
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.