FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2417823731> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2417823731 endingPage "584" @default.
• W2417823731 startingPage "575" @default.
• W2417823731 abstract "BACKGROUND The open abdomen technique may be used in critically ill patients to manage abdominal injury, reduce the septic complications, and prevent the abdominal compartment syndrome. Many different techniques have been proposed and multiple studies have been conducted, but the best method of temporary abdominal closure has not been determined yet. Recently, new randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials have been published on this topic. We aimed to perform an up-to-date systematic review on the management of open abdomen, including the most recent published randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, to compare negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with no NPWT and define if one technique has better outcomes than the other with regard to primary fascial closure, postoperative 30-day mortality and morbidity, enteroatmospheric fistulae, abdominal abscess, bleeding, and length of stay. METHODS According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, an online literature research (until July 1, 2015) was performed on MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Library databases. The MeSH terms and free words used “vacuum assisted closure” “vac;”, “open abdomen”, “damage control surgery”, and “temporary abdominal closure”. No language restriction was made. RESULTS The initial systematic literature search yielded 452 studies. After a careful assessment of the titles and of the full text was obtained, eight articles fulfilled inclusion criteria. We analyzed 1,225 patients, of whom 723 (59%) underwent NPWT and 502 (41%) did not undergo NPWT, and performed four subgroups: VAC versus Bogota bag technique (two studies, 106 participants), VAC versus mesh-foil laparostomy (two studies, 159 participants), VAC versus laparostomy (adhesive impermeable with midline zip) (one study, 106 participants), and NPWT versus no NPWT techniques (three studies, 854 participants) in which it is not possible to perform an analysis of the different types of treatment. Comparing the NPWT group and the group without NPWT, there was no statistically significant difference in fascial closure (63.5% vs 69.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27–2.06; p = 0.57), postoperative 30-day overall morbidity (p = 0.19), postoperative enteroatmospheric fistulae rate (2.1% vs 5.8%; OR, 0.63; 95% CIs, 0.12–3.15; p = 0.57), in the postoperative bleeding rate (5.7% vs 14.9%; OR, 0.58; 95% CIs, 0.05–6.84; p = 0.87), and postoperative abdominal abscess rate (2.4% vs 5.6%; OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.13–1.34; p = 0.14). On the other hand, statistical significance was found between the NPWT group and the group without NPWT in the postoperative mortality rate (28.5% vs 41.4%; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23–0.91; p = 0.03) and in the length of stay in the intensive care unit (mean difference, −4.53; 95% CI, −5.46 to 3.60; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION The limitations of the present analysis might be related to the lack of randomized controlled trials, so there is a risk of selection bias favoring NPWT. For several outcomes, there were few studies, confidence intervals were wide, and inconsistency was high, suggesting that although there were no statistically significant differences between the groups, there was insufficient evidence to show that the outcomes were similar. We can conclude from the current available data that NPWT seems to be associated with a trend toward better outcomes compared to the use of no NPWT. It does reflect the evidence presented in the current systematic review; however, the data should be interpreted with substantial caution given a number of weaknesses (in particular, the lack of statistical significance and heterogeneity between studies, i.e., small sample size of the included studies, high variability between studies). We highlight the need for randomized controlled trials having homogeneous inclusion criteria to assess the use of NPWT for the management of open abdomen. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systemic review/meta-analysis, level III." @default.
• W2417823731 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2417823731 creator A5021060082 @default.
• W2417823731 creator A5024736625 @default.
• W2417823731 creator A5041934542 @default.
• W2417823731 creator A5042271789 @default.
• W2417823731 creator A5043157458 @default.
• W2417823731 creator A5072083260 @default.
• W2417823731 creator A5074856508 @default.
• W2417823731 creator A5076722307 @default.
• W2417823731 date "2016-09-01" @default.
• W2417823731 modified "2023-10-03" @default.
• W2417823731 title "What is the effectiveness of the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in patients treated with open abdomen technique? A systematic review and meta-analysis" @default.
• W2417823731 cites W158852171 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W1786523886 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W1972180260 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W1973981257 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W1981849522 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W1986382935 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W1987037498 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W1988865253 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W1996685868 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2001779204 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2004732258 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2005501262 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2006953667 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2020706581 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2030192625 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2033630748 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2034401224 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2040071013 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2044063339 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2048871649 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2051496883 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2058596472 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2068347082 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2072390006 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2084081724 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2089475565 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2105589076 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2111232195 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2113016990 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2125435699 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2135251809 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2141149923 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2144981148 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2149382691 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2159608716 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2164544637 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2165544379 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2741813606 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W2989720103 @default.
• W2417823731 cites W922553865 @default.
• W2417823731 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0000000000001126" @default.
• W2417823731 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27257705" @default.
• W2417823731 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2417823731 type Work @default.
• W2417823731 sameAs 2417823731 @default.
• W2417823731 citedByCount "72" @default.
• W2417823731 countsByYear W24178237312016 @default.
• W2417823731 countsByYear W24178237312017 @default.
• W2417823731 countsByYear W24178237312018 @default.
• W2417823731 countsByYear W24178237312019 @default.
• W2417823731 countsByYear W24178237312020 @default.
• W2417823731 countsByYear W24178237312021 @default.
• W2417823731 countsByYear W24178237312022 @default.
• W2417823731 countsByYear W24178237312023 @default.
• W2417823731 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2417823731 hasAuthorship W2417823731A5021060082 @default.
• W2417823731 hasAuthorship W2417823731A5024736625 @default.
• W2417823731 hasAuthorship W2417823731A5041934542 @default.
• W2417823731 hasAuthorship W2417823731A5042271789 @default.
• W2417823731 hasAuthorship W2417823731A5043157458 @default.
• W2417823731 hasAuthorship W2417823731A5072083260 @default.
• W2417823731 hasAuthorship W2417823731A5074856508 @default.
• W2417823731 hasAuthorship W2417823731A5076722307 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C2776478404 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C2778931659 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C2779232120 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C2779983558 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C2780120127 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConceptScore W2417823731C126322002 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConceptScore W2417823731C141071460 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConceptScore W2417823731C142724271 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConceptScore W2417823731C168563851 @default.
• W2417823731 hasConceptScore W2417823731C17744445 @default.

• next