ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Outcome after vacuum-assisted closure in patients with anorectal malformations-a multi-center comparative study.
Article in Langenbeck's archives 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn patients with anorectal malformations (ARM), perineal wound complications following posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) remain a challenge with an occurrence of 22%-43%. In adults, vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) aims to support wound healing after colorectal procedures. In children evidence is limited, suggesting a potential benefit of VAC therapy after PSARP. We aimed to evaluate the impact of VAC therapy on outcomes after PSARP in a multicenter comparative study.
methodsAll consecutive patients who underwent PSARP from 01/2018-12/2025 in two participating pediatric surgical departments were included. Complications including postoperative perineal wound dehiscence were analyzed. The study was approved by the local ethics committee (approval number: 12354-BO-K-2026).
results48 patients were included: 26 with and 22 without VAC therapy. Baseline characteristics, follow-up duration and the interval until first follow-up were comparable between cohorts respectively. Postoperative outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. Stool smearing occurred in none of the patients in the VAC cohort and in one patient in the non-VAC cohort (p > 0.99). No incontinence was observed in either cohort (p > 0.99). Perineal wound dehiscence occurred in two patients (8%) in the VAC and in one (5%) in the non-VAC cohort (p > 0.99).
conclusionIn our study, VAC therapy was associated with comparable rates of postoperative wound dehiscence after PSARP compared to the non-VAC cohort and to previous reports. Larger, prospective studies are required to confirm our findings.
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.