ReviewHNO2026
[Postoperative wound infections in otorhinolaryngology : Prevention, diagnosis, and management].
Review in HNO, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative wound infections (surgical site infections, SSIs) remain among the most clinically and health-economically significant nosocomial infections worldwide. In Germany, according to current evidence and guideline recommendations, they play a leading role and-according to the S3 guideline on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis-rank first among nosocomial infections [1].
objectiveThe aim of the present work is to summarize the current evidence on prevention, diagnostics, and modern management of postoperative wound infections in otorhinolaryngology, with a particular focus on site-specific risk constellations and evidence-based preventive strategies. MATERIALS AND
methodsA narrative literature review of current guidelines, clinical studies, and review articles on the treatment of infected wounds in the head and neck region as well as on the use of modern wound dressings and riskassessment systems was performed.
resultsThe use of structured risk assessments, e.g., the wounds-at-risk score or the therapeutic index for local infections (TILI), facilitates early identification of wounds at risk of infection. Modern wound care materials such as hydrophobic or silver-containing dressings support antiseptics in infection control and promote wound healing.
conclusionA multimodal therapeutic approach consisting of surgical debridement, targeted antimicrobial therapy, and stage-appropriate wound care improves the course of healing. Systematic risk assessment enables early intervention and may reduce complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42423722What 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.