SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2026
Clinical and economic impact of incisional negative pressure wound therapy in breast surgery: meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWound complications after breast surgery are common and contribute to morbidity and healthcare costs. The economic value of prophylactic incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) remains uncertain. This study evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of iNPWT in preventing postoperative wound complications (freedom from complication) following breast surgery through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched without any restrictions up to 5 March 2025. Randomized trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies comparing prophylactic iNPWT with standard dressings were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias (RoB 2, ROBINS-I), and graded evidence certainty (GRADE). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, and cost-effectiveness modelling focused on surgical site infection (SSI).
resultsTwenty-nine studies including 4904 patients (1817 iNPWT; 3087 controls) were analysed. iNPWT was associated with higher rates of wound dehiscence prevention (RR 1.07, 95% c.i. 1.03 to 1.12), SSI prevention (RR 1.05, 95% c.i. 1.01 to 1.09), and skin necrosis prevention (RR 1.07, 95% c.i. 1.01 to 1.15). No significant differences were observed for seroma, nipple-areolar complex necrosis, or haematoma. Across outcomes, heterogeneity was substantial and 95% prediction intervals crossed the null, indicating uncertainty in the direction of effect in future settings. Evidence certainty ranged from low to moderate. Cost modelling suggested that iNPWT may be cost-saving only in settings with high SSI-related costs.
conclusionsCurrent evidence does not establish consistent clinical benefit of prophylactic iNPWT in breast surgery. Cost-effectiveness appears limited to high-risk or high-cost contexts, supporting selective use.
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.