ArticlePloS one2025
Protocol for a study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy after abdominal perineal resection (VACPAC study).
Article in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAbdominal perineal resection (APR) is a surgical procedure for rectal cancer that frequently results in perineal wound surgical site infections (SSI), particularly in high-risk patients undergoing preoperative treatment. SSI after APR is associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased medical costs, and delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, potentially leading to poor prognosis. Although omentoplasty and myocutaneous flap reconstruction have been used to prevent SSI, they are not always feasible. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) has been shown to reduce SSI in high-risk wounds; however, its efficacy in APR remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of pNPWT in preventing perineal wound SSI after APR. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a multi-institutional, single-arm trial investigating pNPWT after APR. The study includes patients undergoing APR for malignant rectal tumors who meet the high-risk criteria for SSI. The intervention involves applying the 3M™ Prevena™ Plus Customizable system immediately after perineal skin closure, maintaining pNPWT for up to 7 days. The primary endpoint is the incidence of perineal wound SSI within 30 days. Secondary endpoints include postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade III or higher), hospital stay, and completion proportion of pNPWT. DISCUSSION: This study seeks to provide clinical evidence of the efficacy of pNPWT in reducing perineal wound SSI after APR. Given its ease of application and minimal invasiveness, pNPWT may serve as an effective approach for SSI prevention. These findings may contribute to the establishment of a standardized preventive approach for perineal wound management after APR.
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.