Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressings following soft-tissue sarcoma excision: a prospective, randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims The primary objective of this study was to compare the postoperative infection rate between negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and conventional dressings for closed incisions following soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) surgery. Secondary objectives were to compare rates of adverse wound events and functional scores. Methods In this prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial (RCT), patients were randomized to either NPWT or conventional sterile occlusive dressings. A total of 17 patients, with a mean age of 54 years (21 to 81), were successfully recruited and none were lost to follow-up. Wound reviews were undertaken to identify any surgical site infection (SSI) or adverse wound events within 30 days. The Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score were recorded as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Results There were two out of seven patients in the control group (28.6%), and two out of ten patients in the intervention group (20%) who were diagnosed with a SSI (p > 0.999), while one additional adverse wound event was identified in the control group (p = 0.593). No significant differences in PROMs were identified between the groups at either 30 days (TESS, p = 0.987; MSTS, p = 0.951) or six-month (TESS, p = 0.400) follow-up. However, neoadjuvant radiotherapy was significantly associated with a SSI within 30 days of surgery, across all patients (p = 0.029). The mean preoperative modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) was also significantly higher among patients who developed a postoperative adverse wound event (p = 0.028), including a SSI (p = 0.008), across both groups. Conclusion This is the first RCT comparing NPWT with conventional dressings following musculoskeletal tumour surgery. Postoperative wound complications are common in this group of patients and we observed an overall SSI rate of 23.5%. We propose proceeding to a multicentre trial, which will help more clearly define the role of closed incision NPWT in STS surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(12):1049–1056.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".