MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323408336 · doi:10.1097/dcr.0000000000000161

Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Decreases the Frequency of Postoperative Perineal Surgical Site Infections

2014· article· en· W2323408336 on OpenAlexaff
Sami A. Chadi, Biniam Kidane, Karen Britto, Muriel Brackstone, Michael Ott

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Colon & Rectum · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbdominoperineal resectionSurgeryNegative-pressure wound therapyPerioperativeSurgical woundSurgical incisionPerineumWound dehiscenceColorectal surgeryAnesthesiaAbdominal surgeryInternal medicineColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal resection is a procedure associated with high rates of perineal surgical site infections, causing distress to the patient, costs to the hospital system, and delays in further treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the role of incisional negative pressure wound therapy in decreasing the rates of perineal surgical site infection. DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study had a historical, consecutively sampled control group. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a single-institution tertiary care academic institution. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing an abdominoperineal resection between 2008 and 2012 were assessed. INTERVENTIONS: Perineal incisional negative pressure wound therapy was applied to all patients following an abdominoperineal resection between 2010 and 2012 at 125 mmHg continuous suction for 5 days postoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The development of a perineal surgical site infection within the first 30 days postoperatively was the primary outcome measured. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were included: 27 in the incisional negative pressure wound therapy group and 32 in the control group. A statistically lower proportion of perineal surgical site infections were detected in the incisional negative pressure wound therapy group than in the standard dressing group (15% vs 41%; p = 0.02). Both populations were similar in perioperative risk factors, with the exception of increased levels of blood urea nitrogen, a higher proportion of hypertensive patients, and a longer mean operative time in the incisional negative pressure wound therapy group. Additionally, an increased length of stay was observed in the incisional negative pressure wound therapy group (11 vs 8 days; p = 0.03). After adjusting for confounders, including the type of perineal dissection, incisional negative pressure wound therapy was found to be an independent predictor of not developing an surgical site infection (adjusted OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.66; p = 0.01). LIMITATIONS: The study's retrospective nature limits the results because of the risk of interpreter bias, although this was addressed in part by reviewing data in duplicate. We controlled for the potential for selection bias with our consecutive sampling model. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a role for incisional negative pressure wound therapy in decreasing rates of perineal surgical site infection following abdominoperineal resection. Prospective randomized trials will be required to further investigate this intervention.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the Colon & RectumSame topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207