ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative Study on Subcutaneous Negative Suction Drain vs. No Drain in Emergency Laparotomy Wounds for Peritonitis.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Delayed primary closure versus subcutaneous suction drain with primary closure following contaminated laparotomy wound.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Value of a self-made subcutaneous negative-pressure drain in cesarean delivery: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of subcutaneous negative suction drainage vs. no drainage in reducing postoperative complications following emergency laparotomy for peritonitis. Objective The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of subcutaneous negative pressure closure on various postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing emergency surgery. Specifically, the study aims to assess its impact on the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI), wound dehiscence, the need for secondary suturing, and the duration of hospital stay. Additionally, the study seeks to determine whether the observed SSIs are primarily attributable to intra-abdominal infections or are a result of hospital-acquired cross infections. Materials and methods A prospective comparative study was conducted on 60 patients diagnosed with peritonitis who underwent emergency laparotomy. They were randomly assigned into two groups of 30 patients each: Group A (with subcutaneous negative suction drain) and Group B (without drain). In Group A, drain fluid was analyzed for infection characteristics, while wound discharge from both groups was assessed microbiologically, where present. Results Group A included 21 males (70%) and nine females (30%), while Group B had 26 males (86%) and four females (13%). Midline vertical incisions were used in 90% of cases, with the remaining 10% receiving right paramedian incisions. Discharge from the incision site was observed in five patients (16%) in Group A and 13 patients (43%) in Group B (p = 0.024). SSIs occurred in five patients (16.67%) in Group A and in eight patients (26%) in Group B. Seroma formation was observed in five patients (16.67%) in Group B, but none in Group A. No significant differences were noted in wound dehiscence, need for secondary suturing, or duration of hospital stay between the groups. Conclusion Subcutaneous negative suction drainage significantly reduced the incidence of SSI, seroma formation, and discharge from the incision site following emergency laparotomy for peritonitis. This may lower the risk of wound complications and postoperative morbidity. Further randomized controlled trials are recommended to validate these findings.
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.