ArticleBMC surgery2025
Evaluation of risk factors for poor wound healing after cesarean delivery in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoor wound healing (PWH) are significant complications following cesarean deliveries, particularly in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) due to hyperglycemia-induced immune dysfunction and impaired wound healing. Identifying specific risk factors is essential for developing effective preventive strategies and improving maternal outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective study, conducted from January 2020 to August 2023, followed STROBE guidelines. A total of 268 GDM patients who underwent cesarean delivery were included, with 5 lost to follow-up, yielding a 98.2% follow-up rate. Patients were divided into two groups: the PWH group (n = 26) and the control group (n = 242). Comprehensive data on maternal age, gestational age, pre-pregnancy BMI, IVF-ET use, uterine scarring, surgery type (emergency vs. elective), operative time, and infections (Candida albicans and Group B Streptococcus) were collected. Statistical analyses included Chi-square, Fisher's exact tests, and multivariate logistic regression to identify independent risk factors for PWH.
resultsThe overall incidence of PWH was 9.7%, with the majority being superficial infections, including suture reactions (38.5%), bleeding and exudation (30.8%), abscesses (15.4%), and fat liquefaction (11.5%). Deep infections were rare, with only 3.8% presenting as endometritis and no cases of pelvic abscess. Multivariate logistic regression identified the following significant independent risk factors for PWH: premature rupture of membranes (OR = 10.88, 95% CI: 1.70-71.25, P = 0.002), Candida infection (OR = 5.77, 95% CI: 1.89-18.65, P = 0.003), emergency cesarean delivery (OR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.02-5.48, P = 0.047), a scarred uterus (OR = 3.68, 95% CI: 1.43-9.39, P = 0.006), and prolonged operative time (≥ 1 h; OR = 2.55, 95% CI: 1.02-3.73, P = 0.031).
conclusionsProlonged operative time, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), emergency cesarean delivery, and uterine scarring were identified as independent risk factors for PWH in GDM patients. Candida infection also showed a statistical association but was based on limited case numbers and should be interpreted cautiously. Targeted perioperative strategies may help reduce PWH risk in this population.
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.