SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2025
Evaluating negative-pressure wound therapy after abdominoperineal resection: a systematic review of efficacy and technical variability.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring the risk factors for perineal wound infection after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection (APR) for anal or low rectal cancer remain a significant clinical concern, frequently leading to surgical site infections (SSIs), wound dehiscence, and delayed healing. These complications contribute to increased patient morbidity, prolonged hospitalization, and higher healthcare costs. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) has been proposed to improve wound outcomes in this context, but evidence regarding its effectiveness remains inconclusive.
objectiveThis systematic review evaluates the clinical outcomes and technical application of pNPWT in closed perineal wounds following APR, with a focus on its potential impact on SSIs, wound dehiscence, and healing time.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies assessing pNPWT after APR. Key outcomes of interest were SSI rates, wound dehiscence, healing time, and length of hospital stay. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was performed.
resultsIn total, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The results were heterogeneous: while three studies reported reduced SSI rates with pNPWT compared with conventional wound management, two studies observed higher SSI rates in the pNPWT groups. Variability in device type (canister-based versus portable systems), negative pressure settings, application duration, and patient selection limited the comparability across studies. The risk of bias was moderate to high in several studies, and outcome reporting was inconsistent.
conclusionsCurrent evidence does not allow for definitive conclusions regarding the clinical benefit of pNPWT after APR. While some studies suggest potential advantages, particularly in terms of SSI reduction, results remain inconsistent and device-dependent. Further high-quality randomized trials are required to clarify the role of pNPWT and to define optimal application protocols in this challenging surgical context.
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.