Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Comparison of Scar Quality Between Primary Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy and Conventional Surgical Dressing in Patients with Closed Forearm Fractures Treated Surgically: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWound healing and the quality of the scar plays a key role in deciding which dressing technique is better.
objectiveThe study aimed to determine if primary incisional negative pressure wound therapy provides better scar quality compared to conventional dressing following definitive fixation of closed forearm fractures.
methodsA prospective randomized control trial of patients diagnosed with acute closed forearm fractures who underwent open reduction and internal fixation from April 2022 to January 2024. Patients received either a standard sterile dressing or incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT). The primary outcome was comparing the histopathological scar quality by examining collagen composition at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included assessment of surgical site infection (ASEPSIS Score) and clinical scar assessment using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed.
results34 patients were included, 47% received iNPWT (n = 16), and 53% received standard dressings (n = 18). With Masson's trichrome stain,15 participants (93.7%) in the intervention group experienced a favourable outcome with an unadjusted relative risk of 1.13 (95% CI: 0.88-1.43, p = 0.341). With Reticulin stain, 12 participants (75%) in the intervention group exhibited desirable results with an unadjusted relative risk of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.58-1.07,p = 0.13). The intervention group had a mean ASEPSIS score of 1.75 with an SD of 2.11 [95% CI-0.62 to 2.87, p = 0.14]. The calculated difference in mean Patient scar scores between the two groups was 7.31 (p = 0.003), and the observer score was 4.5 (p = 0.043).
conclusionsPatients who underwent iNPWT showed cosmetic satisfaction of scar and favourable outcomes in histopathological assessment with Masson's trichrome stain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40576813What 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.