ArticleOTO open
Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy for the Recipient Site in Head and Neck Reconstruction.
Article in OTO open. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of recipient site of closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) on postoperative complications in head and neck reconstruction. Study Design: A single-center retrospective observational study was conducted on patients who underwent head and neck reconstruction for both benign and malignant disease using pedicled or free tissue transfers between November 2023 and September 2024. Setting: A tertiary care institution. Methods: Patients were divided into ciNPT and non-ciNPT groups. 30-day postoperative complication rates, including skin necrosis, surgical site infection (SSI), hematoma, lymphorrhea, anastomotic leakage, and flap vascular compromise, were compared between groups. Results: 44 patients (median age: 68.0, female: 38.6%) were included in the analyses (21 ciNPT, 23 non-ciNPT). The ciNPT group had a higher median intraoperative blood loss (510 vs 175 mL; Although overall complication rates were comparable between the 2 groups, this study emphasizes practical techniques for the clinical application of ciNPT in complex reconstruction cases. Larger, prospective, multi-center studies are warranted to validate its benefits and optimize clinical use. Level of Evidence: Ⅲ.
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.