## 2 Materials and Methods
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline  & **Patient ID** & & \\ \hline  & **1. WA** & **2. WA** & **3. WA** \\ \hline (a) Wound exudate & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ (b) Character of wound exudate & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ (a) Drainage secretion & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ (b) Secretion character & 3 & 1 & 1 \\ (c) Odour & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ (d) Wound character & 2 & 1 & 1 \\ (e) Wound color & 3 & 3 & 2 \\ (f) Wound edge & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ (g) Wound infiltration & 2 & 2 & 1 \\ (h) Wound edge edema & 2 & 2 & 1 \\ (i) Wound edge color & 2 & 2 & 1 \\ (j) Wound environment edema & 2 & 3 & 1 \\ (k) Temperature & 2 & 2 & 2 \\ (l) Eczema & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ (m) Secondary lesions caused by dressing & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline Comments: & & & \\ \hline Wound Manager Signature: & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Wound assessment (WA) chart and numerical scores for observation of wound exudate, wound character, wound edge and wound surrounding. (a) Wound exudate: 1 none/minimal, 2 moderate, 3 excessive exudates; (b) Character of wound exudate: 1 no secretion, 2 sanguinous, 3 serous, 4 haemoserous, 5 purulent; (c) Odor: 1 none/normal 2 malodor; (d) Wound character: 1 primary, 2 predominantly primary, 3 large defects/wound healing disorder, 4 predominant defects/wound healing disorders. (e) Wound color: pink tissue (epithelializing), red (granulating), yellow (fibrinus/sloughy), black (nerotic) 1 pink, 2 pink-red, 3 red, 4 red-yellow, 5 yellow, 6 black-yellow-red, 7 black-yellow, 8 black; (f) Wound edge color: 1 normal, 2 cyanotic, 3 red, 4 pale; (g) Wound infiltration: 1 normal, 2 soft, 3 hard; (h) Wound edge edema: 1 little/none, 2 moderate, 3 excessive; (i) Wound edge color: 1 normal, 2 cyanotic, 3 pale, 4 red (infection, erspielas, phlegmon); (j) Wound environment edema: 1 normal, 2 local, 3 generalised; (k) Temperature: 1 normal, 2 slightly warm, 3 excessively warm; (l) Eczema: 1 none, 2 slight irritation, 3 allergy, 4 congestions; (m) Secondary lesions caused by dressing: 1 none, 2 blisters, 3 abrasions. On the second postoperative day, standard compressive dressings and surgical vacuum drains were removed, and according to in-house standards, a laboratory test determining blood cell count, serum creatinine, and electrolytes was carried out. After wound assessment, NPWT and an antithrombotic compressive stocking were applied over the dressing in the study group. Standard compressive dressings were applied in the control group. The dressings were administered by the on-duty nurse and not by the wound manager. This procedure was repeated on the fifth (second dressing change/first NPWT change) and eighth (third dressing change) postoperative days, respectively. The study ended on the commencement of the third wound inspection on the eighth postoperative day. Hereafter, all further dressings were in the form of standard compressive dressings. During the trial, all patients were subjected to routine post-surgical recovery protocol. For statistical analysis, data were exported into GraphPad Prism version 5.04 for Windows (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA, www.graphpad.com (accessed on 11 August 2021)). Data for primary hypothesis (edema and secretion) was analyzed by group comparison using the Mann-Whitney U test. Differences were assumed to be significant with \(p<0.05\). All other parameters were assessed % by bulk analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis test or ordinary one-way ANOVA, using [PERSON]'s or [PERSON]'s post hoc test with adjustment for multiple comparisons.