ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Clinical efficacy of mechanically activated tissue retractor combined with vacuum sealing drainage for treating deep soft tissue defects: a prospective study.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of mechanically activated tissue retractor (MATR) combined with vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) versus conventional VSD for treating deep soft tissue defects.
methodsThis prospective study included 53 patients with deep soft tissue defects treated between July 2024 and April 2025. The combination group (26 patients) received MATR combined with VSD, while the control group (27 patients) received conventional VSD. Outcome measures included defect healing time, rate of defect healing, mature granulation, graft survival status, pain (Visual Analog Scale, VAS), functional mobility (Activities of Daily Living Scale, ADLS), scarring (Vancouver Scar Scale, VSS), and perioperative complications. Chi-square test, t-test, and ANOVA were used to compare differences.
resultsThe combination group demonstrated a significantly shorter defect healing time and lower perioperative complication rate than the control group (all
conclusionMATR combined with VSD was more effective in treating deep soft tissue defects compared to conventional VSD.
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.