ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Management of wound dehiscence with negative pressure in diabetic patients undergoing pulmonary resection for lung cancer.
Article in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Thoracotomy wound dehiscence, with or without infection, remains a challenging postoperative complication associated with delayed recovery and increased healthcare burden. Diabetes mellitus is a well-recognized risk factor for impaired wound healing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of a portable incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) device (PICO™) in the management of thoracotomy wound dehiscence in diabetic patients undergoing pulmonary resection for lung cancer. Methods: This small retrospective comparative case series included 19 consecutive diabetic patients who developed thoracotomy wound dehiscence after pulmonary resection for lung cancer between February 2006 and June 2018. Following surgical wound revision, debridement, and complete wound re-closure, 9 patients received iNPWT with the PICO™ system (Group A), while 10 patients received conventional dressing (Group B). Continuous variables were expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR) and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was set at Results: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. Patients treated with the PICO™ system showed a significantly shorter time to complete wound healing compared with those receiving conventional dressing [10 days [8.25-12] vs. 13 days [12-14], Conclusions: In this small retrospective comparative case series, the use of the PICO™ system was associated with a shorter time to complete wound healing in diabetic patients with thoracotomy wound dehiscence. Given the retrospective design and limited sample size, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Larger prospective studies are warranted to confirm the potential role of incisional negative-pressure wound therapy in this clinical setting.
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.