SynthesisJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2025
Negative pressure wound therapy for the prevention of surgical site infections in orthopedic and trauma surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Analysis of factors influencing tension blister formation on the skin at the dressing edges in patients undergoing negative pressure wound therapy].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026Article
- Review
- Risk stratification of surgical site infection in high-risk spine surgery under prophylactic ciNPWT.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Observational
- Use of Rotterdam Risk Index in the Assessment of Risk Factors in Abdominal Wound Dehiscence.Cureus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infections (SSIs) are an important postoperative complication in orthopedic surgery, resulting in increased morbidity, prolonged hospital stay, and higher healthcare costs. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been proposed to reduce SSIs by facilitating wound healing by increased perfusion, edema reduction, and bacterial control. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the effectiveness of NPWT compared with conventional dressings for prevention of surgical site infections in orthopedic and trauma surgery.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library in December 2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NPWT with CD in patients undergoing joint replacement, trauma surgery, or spine surgery were included. Two independent reviewers conducted data extraction and assessed study quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Pooled outcomes were evaluated with odds ratios (ORs) computed for dichotomous variables and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed via the I
resultsOverall, 18 RCTs, comprising a total of 4585 patients, were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated that NPWT significantly reduced SSIs (pooled OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.82; p = 0.0005) and wound dehiscence (pooled OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23-0.65; p = 0.0003). Additionally, NPWT was associated with a reduction in length of hospital stay by 0.87 days (MD -0.87, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.38; p = 0.0005) and fewer dressing changes compared with conventional methods. The quality of evidence for the primary outcome was rated as moderate based on the GRADE approach.
conclusionsNPWT appears to offer a significant clinical benefit in reducing the incidence of SSIs in orthopedic and trauma surgery. Secondary analyses also demonstrated benefits for surgical wound dehiscence, length of hospital stay, and number of dressing changes. However, the certainty of evidence is moderate, and these findings should be interpreted with caution. Further well-designed, multicenter RCTs are warranted to confirm these benefits, assess long-term outcomes, and evaluate cost-effectiveness. Level of evidence Level I. REGISTRATION: CRD42024624188.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.