← Back to Search

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy

PICO 7 dressing for Panniculitis

N/A
Waitlist Available
Led By Lisa Mims, MD
Research Sponsored by Indiana University
Eligibility Criteria Checklist
Specific guidelines that determine who can or cannot participate in a clinical trial
Must have
Be older than 18 years old
Timeline
Screening 3 weeks
Treatment Varies
Follow Up 48 hours after surgery
Awards & highlights

Study Summary

This trial will help determine if closed incision negative pressure therapy with a PICO 7 dressing prevents wound infections and promotes healing better than the standard abdominal dressing in women undergoing repeat cesarean sections.

Eligible Conditions
  • Panniculitis

Timeline

Screening ~ 3 weeks
Treatment ~ Varies
Follow Up ~48 hours after surgery
This trial's timeline: 3 weeks for screening, Varies for treatment, and 48 hours after surgery for reporting.

Treatment Details

Study Objectives

Outcome measures can provide a clearer picture of what you can expect from a treatment.
Primary outcome measures
Patient Satisfaction with wound appearance
Subjective cosmetic result
Secondary outcome measures
Analog pain scores 48 hours
Analog pain scores 72 hours
Analog pain scores @4 weeks
+3 more

Trial Design

2Treatment groups
Experimental Treatment
Group I: Treatment GroupExperimental Treatment1 Intervention
This group will have a PICO negative pressure wound treatment device applied to their surgical wound site.
Group II: Control GroupExperimental Treatment1 Intervention
Standard Intervention. This group will have a standard wound dressing (gauze, bandage) applied to their surgical wound site.
Treatment
First Studied
Drug Approval Stage
How many patients have taken this drug
PICO 7 dressing
2022
N/A
~30

Find a Location

Who is running the clinical trial?

Indiana UniversityLead Sponsor
980 Previous Clinical Trials
983,137 Total Patients Enrolled
Lisa Mims, MDPrincipal InvestigatorIndiana University

Frequently Asked Questions

These questions and answers are submitted by anonymous patients, and have not been verified by our internal team.

What is the current number of participants in this medical experiment?

"Affirmative. According to clinicaltrials.gov, this medical study is currently enrolling candidates, having been originally posted on July 28th 2022 and recently updated on August 1st of the same year. A total of 100 participants must be sourced from a single site for the trial to take place."

Answered by AI

Is the research team actively searching for participants in this investigation?

"According to clinicaltrials.gov, the recruitment process for this medical trial is still in progress; it was initially posted on July 28th 2022 and updated lastly on August 1st 2022."

Answered by AI
Recent research and studies
Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryJournal
Reliability and Validity Testing of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale in Evaluating Linear Scars After Breast Cancer Surgery
Truong, Pauline T., Junella C. Lee, Benjamin Soer, Catherine A. Gaul, and Ivo A. Olivotto. 2007. “Reliability and Validity Testing of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale in Evaluating Linear Scars After Breast Cancer Surgery”. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000252949.77525.bc.
British Journal of SurgeryJournal
Meta-analysis of Negative-pressure Wound Therapy for Closed Surgical Incisions
Hyldig, N, H Birke-Sorensen, M Kruse, C Vinter, J S Joergensen, J A Sorensen, O Mogensen, R F Lamont, and C Bille. 2016. “Meta-analysis of Negative-pressure Wound Therapy for Closed Surgical Incisions”. British Journal of Surgery. Oxford University Press (OUP). doi:10.1002/bjs.10084.
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic SurgeryJournal
Skin Scar Preconceptions Must Be Challenged: Importance of Self-perception in Skin Scarring
Brown, B.C., T.P. Moss, D.A. McGrouther, and A. Bayat. 2010. “Skin Scar Preconceptions Must Be Challenged: Importance of Self-perception in Skin Scarring”. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. Elsevier BV. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2009.03.019.
Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologyJournal
Comparative Cosmetic Outcome of Surgical Incisions Created by the PEAK Plasma Blade and a Scalpel After Cesarean Section by Patient and Observer Assessment Scale (POSAS): A Randomized Double Blind Study
Ekin, Murat, Hediye Dagdeviren, Sema Suzen Caypinar, Bilgen Erdogan, Mehmet Emin Ayag, Huseyin Cengiz, Levent Yasar, and Çaglar Helvacioglu. 2018. “Comparative Cosmetic Outcome of Surgical Incisions Created by the PEAK Plasma Blade and a Scalpel After Cesarean Section by Patient and Observer Assessment Scale (POSAS): A Randomized Double Blind Study”. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Elsevier BV. doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2017.12.011.
~9 spots leftby Apr 2025
Unbiased ResultsWe believe in providing patients with all the options.
Your Data Stays Your DataWe only share your information with the clinical trials you're trying to access.
Verified Trials OnlyAll of our trials are run by licensed doctors, researchers, and healthcare companies.
Back to top