Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35306599›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2022

Can prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy improve clinical outcomes in spinal fusion surgery? A meta-analysis.

Zhi Chen, Jun Sun, Zhipeng Yao, Chenyang Song, Wenge Liu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Spinal Surgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhi ChenDepartment of Orthopedics Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian, China.
Jun SunDepartment of Emergency, Zhaotong Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Zhaotong, 657000, Yunnan, China.
Zhipeng YaoDepartment of Orthopedics Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian, China.
Chenyang SongDepartment of Orthopedics Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian, China.
Wenge LiuDepartment of Orthopedics Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian, China. lwgspine@126.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2128-1908
Fujian Medical University · CNJining Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRecently negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is increasingly being prophylactically used to prevent wound complications in various types of surgeries, but its role in spinal fusion surgery was less well established. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic NPWT (PNPWT) usage in spinal fusion surgery.

methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, databases PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies. Studies comparing PNPWT with standard wound dressing (SWD) were included and analyzed. The primary outcome was the incidence of surgical site infection, and secondary outcomes were incidence of wound dehiscence, overall wound complication, readmission and reoperation.

resultsA total of five studies were included; there were 279 patients in PNPWT group and 715 patients in SWD group. Four studies investigated surgical site infection; the pooled analysis showed a significantly lower incidence of surgical site infection in PNPWT group (OR: 0.399; 95% CI: 0.198, 0.802). Two studies explored wound dehiscence, three studies reported overall wound complication, and there were no significant differences between the two groups ((OR: 0.448; 95% CI: 0.144, 1.389) and (OR: 0.562; 95% CI: 0.296, 1.065), respectively). Two studies evaluated readmission, three studies compared reoperation rate, and the pooled results demonstrated no significant difference between the two groups ((OR: 1.045; 95% CI: 0.536, 2.038) and (OR: 0.979; 95% CI: 0.442, 2.169), respectively).

conclusionsThe current evidence suggested PNPWT could effectively reduce postoperative surgical site infection, but it had no significant benefit on reducing the incidence of wound dehiscence, overall wound complication, readmission and reoperation.

Indexed as

Negative-Pressure Wound TherapySpinal FusionHumansReoperationSurgical Wound DehiscenceSurgical Wound InfectionMeta-analysisNegative pressure wound therapyPostoperative complicationProphylaxisSpine surgery

Identifiers

PMID35306599
OpenAlexW4220921320

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.