-
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2021Open tibial fractures are complex injuries with variable outcomes that significantly impact patients' lives. Surgical debridement is paramount in preventing detrimental... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Open tibial fractures are complex injuries with variable outcomes that significantly impact patients' lives. Surgical debridement is paramount in preventing detrimental complications such as infection and non-union; however, the exact timing of debridement remains a topic of great controversy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between timing of surgical debridement and outcomes such as infection and non-union in open tibial fractures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to capture studies evaluating the association between timing of initial surgical debridement and infection or non-union, or other reported outcomes. We searched the MEDLINE, PubMed Central, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central and Web of Science electronic databases. Our methodology was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.
RESULTS
The systematic review included 20 studies with 10,032 open tibial fractures. The overall infection rate was 14.3% (314 out of 2193) and the overall non-union rate 14.2% (116 out of 817). We did not find any statistically significant association between delayed debridement and infection rate (OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.11; = 0.23) or non-union rate (OR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.15; = 0.13). These findings did not change when we accounted for the effect of different time thresholds used for defining early and late debridement, nor with the Gustilo-Anderson classification or varying study characteristics.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this meta-analysis support that delayed surgical debridement does not increase the infection or non-union rates in open tibial fracture injuries. Consequently, we propose that a reasonable delay in the initial debridement is acceptable to ensure that optimal management conditions are in place, such that the availability of surgical expertise, skilled staff and equipment are prioritised over getting to surgery rapidly. We recommend changing the standard guidance around timing for performing surgical debridement to 'as soon as reasonably possible, once appropriate personnel and equipment are available; ideally within 24-h'.
PubMed: 34199379
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11061017 -
SpringerPlus 2016Peri-implantitis or Periimplantitis is characterized as an inflammatory reaction that affects the hard and soft tissue, which results in loss of supporting bone and... (Review)
Review
Peri-implantitis or Periimplantitis is characterized as an inflammatory reaction that affects the hard and soft tissue, which results in loss of supporting bone and pocket formation surrounding the functioning osseointegrated implant. This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. The data sources used was PubMed. Searches of this database were restricted to English language publications from January 2010 to June 2015. All Randomized Controlled Trials describing the treatments of peri-implantitis of human studies with a follow up of at least 6 months were included. Eligibility and quality were assessed and two reviewers extracted the data. Data extraction comprised of type, intensity provider, and location of the intervention. A total of 20 publications were included (10 involving surgical and 10 involving non-surgical mechanical procedure). The non-surgical approach involves the mechanical surface debridement using carbon or titanium currettes, laser light, and antibiotics whereas, surgical approach involves implantoplasty, elevation of mucoperiosteal flap and removal of peri-inflammatory granulation tissue followed by surface decontamination and bone grafting. This study reveals that non-surgical therapy tends to remove only the local irritant from the peri-implantitis surface with or without some additional adjunctive therapies agents or device. Hence, non-surgical therapy is not helpful in osseous defect. Surgical therapy in combination with osseous resective or regenerative approach removes the residual sub-gingival deposits additionally reducing the peri-implantitis pocket. Although there is no specific recommendation for the treatment of peri-implantitis, surgical therapy in combination with osseous resective or regenerative approach showed the positive outcome.
PubMed: 26877903
DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-1735-2 -
Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and... Apr 2021Non-tuberculous pyogenic spinal infection (PSI) incorporates a variety of different clinical conditions. Surgical interventions may be necessary for severe cases where... (Review)
Review
Posterior stabilisation without formal debridement for the treatment of non-tuberculous pyogenic spinal infection in frail and debilitated population - A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Non-tuberculous pyogenic spinal infection (PSI) incorporates a variety of different clinical conditions. Surgical interventions may be necessary for severe cases where there is evidence of spinal instability or neurological compromise. The primary surgical procedure, for late-stage PSI, focuses on the anterior approach with aggressive debridement of the infected tissue regions. An alternative treatment method that employs a posterior approach without any formal debridement, is seen as controversial. To the best of our knowledge, few case series and no systematic reviews are assessing the value of this posterior technique. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the posterior approach formal debridement and the associated clinical outcomes, for PSI cases requiring surgical intervention. Several databases including MEDLINE, NHS Evidence, and the Cochrane database were searched from the date of creation of each database to December 16, 2019. A selection of the keywords used includes: "posterior approach", "debridement" and "discitis". Studies were excluded if they involved the anterior approach, carried out formal debridement, or were tuberculous spinal infection cases. We accepted any study type which included adult patients, with spinal infection at any level of the vertebral column. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used to follow standard systematic review structure. The main clinical outcomes evaluated include pain, neurological recovery (Frankel Grading System, FGS) post-operative complications, and functional outcomes (Kirkaldy-Willis Criteria and Spine Tango Combined Outcome Measure Index, COMI). Post-surgical neurological improvement was demonstrated with a mean FGS improvement of 1.12 in 102 patients over the included four articles. Post-operative neurological function was found to be improved at a statistically significant level when a random-effects model was applied, with the effect size found to be at 0.68 (p < 0.001). Pain level was improved significantly postoperatively. There were also enhanced functional outcomes post-intervention when the Kirkaldy-Willis criteria and COMI scores were assessed in certain studies. Within the limit of the available literature, our results showed that the posterior approach with posterior stabilisation without formal debridement can result in successful infection resolution, improved pain scores and neurological outcomes. However, Larger series with longer follow-up duration is strongly recommended.
PubMed: 33717910
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.11.009 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2015Rehabilitation following hip arthroscopy is an integral component of the clinical outcome of the procedure. Given the increase in quantity, complexity, and diversity of... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Rehabilitation following hip arthroscopy is an integral component of the clinical outcome of the procedure. Given the increase in quantity, complexity, and diversity of procedures performed, a need exists to define the role of rehabilitation following hip arthroscopy.
OBJECTIVES
(1) To determine the current rehabilitation protocols utilized following hip arthroscopy in the current literature, (2) to determine if clinical outcomes are significantly different based on different post-operative rehabilitation protocols, and (3) to propose the best-available evidence-based rehabilitation program following hip arthroscopy.
DATA SOURCES
Per PRISMA guidelines and checklist, Medline, SciVerse Scopus, SportDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched.
STUDY SELECTION
Level I-IV evidence clinical studies with minimum 2-year follow-up reporting outcomes of hip arthroscopy with post-operative rehabilitation protocols described were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
All study, subject, and surgery parameters were collected. All elements of rehabilitation were extracted and analyzed. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Study methodological quality was analyzed using the modified Coleman methodology score.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies were included (2,092 subjects; 52% male, mean age 35.1 ± 10.6 years, mean follow-up 3.2 ± 1.0 years). Labral tear and femoroacetabular impingement were the most common diagnoses treated and labral debridement and femoral/acetabular osteochondroplasty the most common surgical techniques performed. Rehabilitation protocol parameters (weight-bearing, motion, strengthening, and return to sport) were poorly reported. Differences in clinical outcomes were unable to be assessed given heterogeneity in study reporting. Time-, phase-, goal-, and precaution-based guidelines were extracted and reported.
CONCLUSION
The current literature of hip arthroscopy rehabilitation lacks high-quality evidence to support a specific protocol. Heterogeneity in study, subject, and surgical demographics precluded assimilation of protocols and/or outcomes to generate evidence-based guidelines. Strengths and limitations in the literature were identified. Future studies should recognize and report the essentials of rehabilitation following hip arthroscopy.
PubMed: 26075208
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00021 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Nov 2017Evidence regarding the effectiveness of arthroscopic débridement for a triangular fibrocartilage complex tear is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to conduct a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence regarding the effectiveness of arthroscopic débridement for a triangular fibrocartilage complex tear is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of outcomes to evaluate the effectiveness of débridement for triangular fibrocartilage complex tears.
METHODS
The authors searched all available literature in the PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE (Ovid) databases for articles reporting on triangular fibrocartilage complex tear débridement. Data collection included arc of motion, grip strength, patient-reported outcomes, and complications.
RESULTS
A total of 1723 unique studies were identified, of which 18 studies met the authors' criteria. The mean before and after arc of wrist extension/flexion motion values were 120 and 146 degrees (six studies). The mean before and after grip strength values were 65 percent and 91 percent of the contralateral side (10 studies). Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores (six studies) and pain visual analogue scale scores (seven studies) improved from 39 to 18, and from 7 to 3, respectively. The mean pain visual analogue scale score after débridement was 1.9 in the ulnar-positive group and 2.4 in the ulnar-neutral and ulnar-negative groups. Eighty-seven percent of patients returned to their original work.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients reported reduced pain and improved functional and patient-reported outcomes after débridement of triangular fibrocartilage complex tears. Most patients after débridement returned to previous work, with few complications. Although some of these cases may require secondary procedures, simple débridement can be performed with suitable satisfactory outcomes for cases with any type of ulnar variance.
Topics: Arthroscopy; Debridement; Humans; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Return to Work; Treatment Outcome; Triangular Fibrocartilage; Wrist Injuries
PubMed: 29068932
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003750 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2023The choice of the debridement method is very important for the healing of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), but the relative effectiveness of different debridement methods in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The choice of the debridement method is very important for the healing of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), but the relative effectiveness of different debridement methods in the healing of DFUs remains unclear. This study conducted a network meta-analysis of the relative healing effectiveness of different debridement methods in patients with DFUs.
METHODS
We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from database inception up to 30 June 2023 for screening randomized controlled trials on the healing effectiveness of debridement in DFUs. Outcome measures included ulcer healing rate and ulcer area reduction rate. The Cochrane Risk Bias Tool, version 2.0, was used to assess the risk of bias in the included trials. R software was used for performing statistical analysis and GraphPad Prism was used for image plotting.
RESULTS
A total of 19 randomized controlled trials were included, and 900 patients with DFUs were assessed in this analysis. The proteolytic fraction from the latex of (P1G10) in enzymatic debridement showed the best ulcer healing rate (SURCA = 0.919) when compared with the standard of care (SOC) group, with a mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.40 (0.57, 2.36). Kiwifruit extract demonstrated the best effect on the ulcer area reduction rate (SURCA = 0.931), when compared with that in the SOC group, with an MD and 95% CI of 0.47 (0.27, 0.66).
CONCLUSION
Enzymatic debridement was superior to other debridement methods in terms of ulcer healing rate and ulcer area reduction rate in patients with DFUs. However, as the quality of the included trials is low, enzymatic debridement can be used as a candidate debridement method in addition to sharp-based debridement in clinical practice.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023441715.
Topics: Humans; Diabetic Foot; Debridement; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wound Healing; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 38146472
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1271706 -
BMJ Surgery, Interventions, & Health... 2022Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) has devastating complications and a lifetime occurrence of 15%-34%. Debridement of DFU is regarded as an intervention that accelerates...
BACKGROUND
Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) has devastating complications and a lifetime occurrence of 15%-34%. Debridement of DFU is regarded as an intervention that accelerates ulcer healing and may reduce complications including amputations, infections, and poor quality of life (QoL), which have serious public health and clinical implications. A systematic review (SR) of SRs and of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses (MAs) on debridement of DFU that synthesizes all human experimental evidence is warranted.
OBJECTIVES
Are debridement methods in DFU beneficial over other forms and standard gauze dressings (control condition) in these outcomes?
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
All SRs/MAs/RCTs comparing debridement methods for DFU with alternative methods of debridement and with control.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, and Web of Science.
PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS
Adults with type 1/2 diabetes with DFU and any debridement method compared with alternative debridement methods or control.
MAIN OUTCOMES
Amputation rates, wound infections, QoL, proportion of ulcers healed, time to complete healing, ulcer recurrence, and treatment cost.
STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data extraction/synthesis by two independent reviewers pooled using a random-effects model with sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
10 SRs were retrieved and reported qualitatively. Six SRs included MAs. This SR included 30 studies, with 2654 participants, using 19 debridement combinations. The debridement methods were compared with findings pooled into MAs. Meta-regression (MR) did not identify significant predictors/moderators of outcomes.
LIMITATIONS
The studies may have been under-powered. The inclusion/exclusion criteria varied and the increased risk of bias contributed to low-quality evidence.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
Weak evidence exists that debridement methods are superior to other forms of debridement or control in DFU.
IMPLICATIONS
Researchers should follow standardized reporting guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). Clinicians/investigators could use the findings from this SR/MA/MR in guiding patient-individualized decision making and designing future RCTs.
PubMed: 35721280
DOI: 10.1136/bmjsit-2021-000081 -
Acta Orthopaedica Apr 2023Wrist arthroscopy is used increasingly, but its benefits and harms are unclear. This systematic review aimed to identify all published randomized controlled trials on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Wrist arthroscopy is used increasingly, but its benefits and harms are unclear. This systematic review aimed to identify all published randomized controlled trials on wrist arthroscopy and synthesize the evidence of the benefits and harms of wrist arthroscopic procedures.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomized controlled trials comparing wrist-arthroscopic surgery with corresponding open surgery, placebo surgery, a non-surgical treatment, or no treatment. We estimated the treatment effect with a random effect meta-analysis using patient reported outcome measure (PROM) as primary outcome where several studies assessed the same intervention.
RESULTS
Of 7 included studies, none compared wrist arthroscopic procedures with no treatment or placebo surgery. 3 trials compared arthroscopically assisted reduction with fluoroscopic reduction of intra-articular distal radius fractures. The certainty of evidence was low to very low for all comparisons. The benefit of arthroscopy was clinically unimportant (smaller than what patients may consider meaningful) at all time points. 2 studies compared arthroscopic and open resection of wrist ganglia, finding no significant difference in recurrence rates. 1 study estimated the benefit of arthroscopic joint debridement and irrigation in intra-articular distal radius fractures, showing no clinically relevant benefit. 1 study compared arthroscopic triangular fibrocartilage complex repair with splinting in distal radioulnar joint instability in people with distal radius fractures, finding no evidence of benefits for repair at the long-term follow-up but the study was unblinded, and the estimates imprecise.
CONCLUSION
The current limited evidence from RCTs does not support benefits of wrist arthroscopy compared with open or non-surgical interventions.
Topics: Humans; Wrist; Arthroscopy; Wrist Joint; Wrist Injuries; Joint Instability; Radius Fractures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37114362
DOI: 10.2340/17453674.2023.11957 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2022The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the adjunctive use of leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) in periodontal... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the adjunctive use of leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) in periodontal endosseous and furcation defects, as compared without L-PRF. The endosseous defect group was subclassified into: L-PRF/open flap debridement (L-PRF/OFD) versus OFD, L-PRF/osseous graft (L-PRF/OG) versus OG, L-PRF/Emdogain (L-PRF/EMD) versus EMD, and L-PRF/guided tissue regeneration (L-PRF/GTR) versus GTR. The furcation defect group was subclassified into L-PRF/OFD versus OFD, and L-PRF/OG versus OG. Mean difference, 95% confidence intervals and forest plots were calculated for probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and radiographic defect depth (DD). Nineteen studies concerning systemically healthy non-smokers were included. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis showed in two- and/or three-wall endosseous defects that the adjunctive use of L-PRF to OFD or OG was significantly beneficial for PPD reduction, CAL gain and DD reduction, as compared without L-PRF. Furthermore, the data showed that for two- and/or three-wall endosseous defects, the adjunctive use of L-PRF to GTR was significantly beneficial for CAL and DD improvement, whereas adding L-PRF to EMD had no significant effect, and that for class II furcation defects, the addition of L-PRF to OFD was significantly beneficial for PPD, CAL and DD improvement, whereas the addition of L-PRF to OG was significantly clinically beneficial. In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis found that there was significant clinical and radiographic additive effectiveness of L-PRF to OFD and to OG in two- and/or three-wall periodontal endosseous defects of systemically healthy non-smokers, as compared without L-PRF.
PubMed: 35329540
DOI: 10.3390/ma15062088 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Recurrent corneal erosion is a common cause of disabling ocular symptoms and predisposes the cornea to infection. It may follow corneal trauma. Measures to prevent the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recurrent corneal erosion is a common cause of disabling ocular symptoms and predisposes the cornea to infection. It may follow corneal trauma. Measures to prevent the development of recurrent corneal erosion following corneal trauma have not been firmly established. Once recurrent corneal erosion develops, simple medical therapy (standard treatment) may lead to resolution of the episode. However, some people continue to suffer when such therapy fails and repeated episodes of erosion develop. A number of treatment and prophylactic options are then available but there is no agreement as to the best option. This review version is an update to the original version published in 2007 and a previous update published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of regimens for the prophylaxis of further recurrent corneal erosion episodes, the treatment of recurrent corneal erosion and prophylaxis of the development of recurrent corneal erosion following trauma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 14 December 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared a prophylactic or treatment regimen with another prophylaxis/treatment or no prophylaxis/treatment for people with recurrent corneal erosion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias. We considered the following outcome measures: resolution of symptoms after treatment; recurrence after complete or partial resolution; symptoms (pain); adverse effects (corneal haze, astigmatism). We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE for the three most clinically relevant comparisons.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight randomised and two quasi-randomised controlled trials in the review, encompassing 505 participants. Seven studies were from Europe (Germany, Sweden and the UK), two from East Asia (Hong Kong and Japan) and one from Australia. Nine of the studies examined treatments for episodes of recurrent corneal erosions and one study considered prophylaxis to prevent development of recurrent corneal erosions after injury. Two of the nine treatment studies also enrolled participants in a study of prophylaxis to prevent further episodes of recurrent corneal erosions. The studies were poorly reported; we judged only one study low risk of bias on all domains.Two studies compared therapeutic contact lens with topical lubrication but one of these studies was published over 30 years ago and used a therapeutic contact lens that is no longer in common use. The more recent study was a two-centre UK study with 29 participants. It provided low-certainty evidence on resolution of symptoms after treatment with similar number of participants in both groups experiencing resolution of symptoms at four months (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.53). There was very low-certainty evidence on recurrence after partial or total resolution at seven months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.54). There was no evidence of an important difference in pain score (score of 3 in the contact lens group and score of 2 in the topical lubrication group, low-certainty evidence) and no adverse effects were reported. The older study, using a contact lens no longer in common use, found an increased risk of pain and complications with the contact lens compared with hypromellose drops and paraffin ointment at night.A single-centre, Australian study, with 33 participants, provided low-certainty evidence of an increased risk of recurrence with phototherapeutic keratectomy compared with alcohol delamination but with wide confidence intervals, compatible with increased or decreased risk (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.37). Time to recurrence was similar in both groups (6.5 and 6 months, low-certainty evidence). On average people receiving phototherapeutic keratectomy reported less pain but confidence intervals included no difference or greater pain (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -2.23 to 0.83, low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported.A 48-participant study in Hong Kong found recurrences were less common in people given diamond burr superficial keratectomy after epithelial debridement compared with sham diamond burr treatment after epithelial debridement (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.50, moderate-certainty evidence). The study did not report pain scores but adverse effects such as corneal haze (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.87, low-certainty evidence) and astigmatism (0.88 versus 0.44 dioptres, moderate-certainty evidence) were similar between the groups.A study comparing transepithelial versus subepithelial excimer laser ablation in 100 people found low-certainty evidence of a small increased risk of recurrence of corneal erosion at one-year follow-up in people given the transepithelial compared with subepithelial technique, however, the confidence intervals were wide and compatible with increased or decreased risk (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.48, low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.Other treatment comparisons included in this review were only addressed by studies published two decades or more ago. The results of these studies were inconclusive: excimer laser ablation (after epithelial debridement) versus no excimer laser ablation (after epithelial debridement), epithelial debridement versus anterior stromal puncture, anterior stromal puncture versus therapeutic contact lens, oral oxytetracycline and topical prednisolone (in addition to 'standard therapy') versus oral oxytetracycline (in addition to 'standard therapy') versus 'standard therapy'.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Well-designed, masked, randomised controlled trials using standardised methods are needed to establish the benefits of new and existing prophylactic and treatment regimes for recurrent corneal erosion. Studies included in this review have been of insufficient size and quality to provide firm evidence to inform the development of management guidelines. International consensus is also needed to progress research efforts towards evaluation of the major effective treatments for recurrent corneal erosions.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Contact Lenses; Corneal Diseases; Corneal Injuries; Debridement; Eye Infections; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Keratectomy; Lubricant Eye Drops; Pain Measurement; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention; Tetracycline
PubMed: 29985545
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001861.pub4