SynthesisSystematic reviews2026
The effectiveness of rigid versus non-rigid dressings in reducing surgical site infections following major lower limb amputations: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infections (SSIs) are common complications following major lower limb amputation (MLLA), particularly among patients with diabetes and peripheral vascular disease. Postoperative dressing choice may influence SSI risk, yet the effect of rigid dressings (RDs) compared to soft dressings (SDs) on SSI risk is unknown. This review aimed to synthesise current literature analysing the effect of RDs versus SDs on SSIs and wound complications following MLLA.
methodsThis study was conducted according to PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to January 2025. Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and case series reporting SSI rates after MLLA managed with RD or SD. Due to the limited number of RCTs and substantial heterogeneity, a planned meta-analysis was not feasible, and a narrative synthesis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, ROBINS-I, and JBI tools, and certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE.
resultsTen studies (1 RCT, 6 observational, 3 case series) with 956 participants undergoing 1018 MLLAs were included. Reported SSI rates ranged from 0% to 77.8% in RD groups and from 13.5% to 65.9% in SD groups. The RCT demonstrated no significant difference in SSI rates between participants in the RD group (21.4%, 12/56) and the SD group (17.9%, 10/56), p = 0.47. Three observational studies reported lower SSI rates with RDs, while one reported higher rate. Wound dehiscence and revision surgery rates were generally lower in RD groups. Overall risk of bias was high across all studies, and no study reported SSIs as a primary outcome. Certainty of evidence was judged very low for all outcomes. DISCUSSION: While some studies suggest a potential benefit of rigid dressings in reducing postoperative complications, the current evidence does not support the superiority of rigid or non-rigid dressings for SSI prevention. Findings are limited by substantial heterogeneity, confounding, and inconsistent reporting. High-quality prospective studies with standardised outcome measures are urgently needed to inform clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024607144.
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.