SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2026
Negative-pressure wound therapy for perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection/extralevator APR: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 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
Abstract
backgroundClosed‑incision negative-pressure wound therapy (ciNPT), or incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT), has been used prophylactically to reduce perineal wound morbidity after oncologic abdominoperineal resection (APR) and extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). However, published evidence is heterogeneous and includes prophylactic incisional use as well as therapeutic/intracavitary applications. We conducted a systematic review and meta‑analysis of NPWT strategies for perineal wound outcomes following oncologic APR/ELAPE.
methodsA systematic search was executed across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to July 2025, including studies that evaluated the role of NPWT in postoperative perineal wounds after oncologic APR/ELAPE. We included both prophylactic closed-incision NPWT (ciNPT) after primary closure and therapeutic NPWT for open/infected perineal wounds; quantitative pooling was limited to comparable comparative studies. The outcomes of interest were the perineal wound complications and infection, surgical revision, and hospital stay. Data were synthesized through a DerSimonian-Laird random effect meta-analysis model, with risk ratios (RR) or mean differences with their 95% confidence interval (CI), pooling the dichotomous or continuous outcomes, respectively.
resultsOur review included eight studies with three comparative studies pooled with a total of 270 patients. Although the raw incidence of perineal wound complications was lower in the NPWT group relative to the control group (36.5% versus 53.6%), the pooled analysis revealed no statistical significance (RR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.42-1.48], p = 0.46). Similarly, no significant differences between the two groups were observed in terms of perineal wound infection (p = 0.35), surgery revision (p = 0.53), and hospital stay (p = 0.77).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrated no significant clinical benefit for NPWT in managing postoperative perineal wound after oncologic APR/ELAPE. Further randomized controlled trials with standardized protocols are needed to clarify the role of NPWT in this area.
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.