Trial reportPediatric surgery international2025
A prospective randomized clinical trial to evaluate wound healing, cosmetic and functional results as well as postoperative adverse events comparing two types of dressing technique after hypospadias repair.
Trial report in Pediatric surgery international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
backgroundDressing technique after hypospadias repair is one of the most controversially discussed subjects in the aftercare. Although current literature presents an enormous number of publications regarding postoperative dressing techniques, there is still no consent on how and if to perform postoperative dressing. The aim of this study is to evaluate two techniques (circular film dressing vs. silver pad covered with film dressing) frequently used in clinical routine after hypospadias surgery.
methodsPrimary outcomes of this prospective randomized clinical trial were wound healing using Southampton Wound Assessment Scale (SWAS) and cosmetic and functional result using Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE)-Score. Secondary outcomes were postoperative adverse events.
results44 patients were included and randomized into two groups (n = 24 for film dressing vs. n = 20 silver pad dressing). Concerning the primary outcomes, no significant difference in SWAS and HOPE score could be shown. Secondary outcomes showed a statistically significant higher rate of wound dehiscence in the silver pad group and no other statistically significant differences.
conclusionsThis study could not show superiority of one dressing regarding wound healing or functional and cosmetic result and thereby strengthens the assumption that the individual dressing technique does not play a crucial role in the postoperative outcome.
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.