ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2026
Comparison of Indigenous Low Cost Vacuum-Assisted Closure Therapy and Standard Wound Therapy in Open Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07790991 (Low-cost Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Standard Wound Dressings for Gustilo-Anderson Type IIIb Open Tibial Fractures in a Low-resource Setting), which is not on this 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.
Low-cost Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Standard Wound Dressings for Gustilo-Anderson Type IIIb Open Tibial Fractures in a Low-resource Setting: Protocol for a Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial in Bukavu,Democratic Republic of Congo
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) has many advantages over standard wound therapy. However, its availability and associated high cost can be a disadvantage to the patients of developing countries, especially those coming from a poor background. There are some off-the-shelf indigenous-made VAC systems that can reduce the cost of VAC therapy by 20 times. However, there is a paucity of level one evidence on their efficacy. A randomized controlled trial was planned to evaluate the efficacy of indigenous VAC therapy as compared to standard wound therapy (SWT). Materials and Methods: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted from December 2023 to April 2025. A total of 80 patients with Gustilo-Anderson type II/IIIA/IIIB open fractures were included in the study. After randomization, two groups (each containing 40 patients) were created. Group A received indigenous VAC therapy, and Group B received SWT. Outcomes such as duration of hospital stay, wound healing time, decrease in size of wound, formation of granulation tissue, infection rates, and other complications were assessed. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS v20.0. Results: VAC Group had a statistically significant shorter duration of hospital stay (28.65 vs. 41.97 days, P = 0.002) and wound healing time (29.55 vs. 45.87 days, P = 0.017) as compared to the SWT group. Wound size reduction and granulation tissue formation were also found to be significantly better in the VAC group. Apart from this, infection rates were also lower in the VAC group (P = 0.045). Conclusions: The use of indigenous VAC significantly reduces hospital stay, shortens healing time, lowers the incidence of deep infections and complications, and enhances granulation tissue formation when compared to SWT. Due to substantially reduced cost of treatment and better results, we strongly recommend the adoption of indigenous VAC systems for early wound management, especially in developing countries.
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.