-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease is a common debilitating condition that predominantly affects young adults, with a profound impact on their activities of daily... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease is a common debilitating condition that predominantly affects young adults, with a profound impact on their activities of daily living. The condition is treated surgically, and in some cases the wound in the natal cleft is left open to heal by itself. Many dressings and topical agents are available to aid healing of these wounds.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of dressings and topical agents for the management of open wounds following surgical treatment for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2021, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and we scanned reference lists of included studies, reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included studies with participants who had undergone any type of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease surgery and were left with an open wound.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs comprising 932 participants. Two studies compared topical negative pressure wound therapy (TNPWT) with conventional open wound healing, two studies compared platelet-rich plasma with sterile absorbent gauze, and the other seven studies compared various dressings and topical agents. All studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain, whilst one study was judged to be at low risk of bias in all but one domain. All studies were conducted in secondary care. Mean participant ages were between 20 and 30 years, and nearly 80% of participants were male. No studies provided data on quality of life, cost-effectiveness, pain at first dressing change or proportion of wounds healed at 6 or 12 months, and very few adverse effects were recorded in any study. It is unclear whether TNPWT reduces time to wound healing compared with conventional open wound healing (comparison 1), as the certainty of evidence is very low. The two studies provided conflicting results, with one study showing benefit (mean difference (MD) -24.01 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -35.65 to -12.37; 19 participants), whilst the other reported no difference. It is also unclear whether TNPWT has any effect on the proportion of wounds healed by 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 3.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 26.54; 19 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Limited data were available for our secondary outcomes time to return to normal daily activities and recurrence rate; we do not know whether TNPWT has any effect on these outcomes. Lietofix cream may increase the proportion of wounds that heal by 30 days compared with an iodine dressing (comparison 4; RR 8.06, 95% CI 1.05 to 61.68; 205 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide data on time to wound healing. We do not know whether hydrogel dressings reduce time to wound healing compared with wound cleaning with 10% povidone iodine (comparison 5; MD -24.54 days, 95% CI -47.72 to -1.36; 31 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide data on the proportion of wounds healed. It is unclear whether hydrogel dressings have any effect on adverse effects as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Platelet-rich plasma may reduce time to wound healing compared with sterile absorbent gauze (comparison 6; MD -19.63 days, 95% CI -34.69 to -4.57; 210 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). No studies provided data on the proportion of wounds healed. Platelet-rich plasma may reduce time to return to normal daily activities (MD -15.49, 95% CI -28.95 to -2.02; 210 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Zinc oxide mesh may make little or no difference to time to wound healing compared with placebo (comparison 2; median 54 days in the zinc oxide mesh group versus 62 days in the placebo mesh group; low-certainty evidence). We do not know whether zinc oxide mesh has an effect on the proportion of wounds healed by 30 days as the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.49 to 11.23). It is unclear whether gentamicin-impregnated collagen sponge reduces time to wound healing compared with no dressing (comparison 7; MD -1.40 days, 95% CI -5.05 to 2.25; 50 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide data on the proportion of wounds healed. Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)-coated dressings may make little or no difference to time to wound healing compared with alginate dressings (comparison 8; median 69 (95% CI 62 to 72) days in the DACC group versus 71 (95% CI 69 to 85) days in the alginate group; 1 study, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study compared a polyurethane foam hydrophilic dressing with an alginate dressing (comparison 3) whilst another study compared a hydrocolloid dressing with an iodine dressing (comparison 9). It is unclear whether either intervention has any effect on time to wound healing as the certainty of evidence is very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At present, the evidence that any of the dressings or topical agents contained in this review have a benefit on time to wound healing, the proportion of wounds that heal at a specific time point or on any of the secondary outcomes of our review ranges from low certainty to very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence on the benefit on wound healing of platelet-rich plasma from two studies and of Lietofix cream and hydrogel dressings from single studies. Further studies are required to investigate these interventions further.
Topics: Adult; Alginates; Bandages; Female; Humans; Hydrogels; Iodine; Male; Pilonidal Sinus; Young Adult; Zinc Oxide
PubMed: 35593897
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013439.pub2 -
World Journal of Surgery Nov 2015Use of topical antibiotics to improve perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection (APR) is controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to determine... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Use of topical antibiotics to improve perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection (APR) is controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the impact of local application of gentamicin on perineal wound healing after APR.
METHODS
The electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched in January 2015. Perineal wound outcome was categorized as infectious complications, non-infectious complications, and primary perineal wound healing.
RESULTS
From a total of 582 articles, eight studies published between 1988 and 2012 were included: four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three comparative cohort studies, and one cohort study without control group. Gentamicin was administered using sponges (n = 3), beads (n = 4), and by local injection (n = 1). There was substantial heterogeneity regarding underlying disease, definition of outcome parameters and timing of perineal wound evaluation among the included studies, which precluded meta-analysis with pooling. Regarding infectious complications, three of six evaluable studies demonstrated a positive effect of local application of gentamicin: one of four RCTs and both comparative cohort studies. Only two RCTs reported on non-infectious complications, showing no significant impact of gentamicin sponge. All three comparative cohort studies demonstrated a significantly higher percentage of primary perineal wound healing after local application of gentamicin beads, but only one out of three evaluable RCTs did show a positive effect of gentamicin sponges.
CONCLUSION
Currently available evidence does not support perineal gentamicin application after APR.
Topics: Abdomen; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Gentamicins; Humans; Perineum; Rectal Neoplasms; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 26170157
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-015-3159-5 -
Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica :... Aug 2019
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Adult; Cautery; Databases, Factual; Drug Combinations; Electrocoagulation; Embolism; Endoscopy; Endovascular Procedures; Epistaxis; Gelatin Sponge, Absorbable; Humans; Laser Therapy; Silver Nitrate; Tranexamic Acid
PubMed: 30933179
DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-2155 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018During elective (planned) caesarean sections, some obstetricians routinely dilate the cervix intraoperatively, using sponge forceps, a finger, or other instruments,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
During elective (planned) caesarean sections, some obstetricians routinely dilate the cervix intraoperatively, using sponge forceps, a finger, or other instruments, because the cervix of women not in labour may not be dilated, and this may cause obstruction of blood or lochia drainage. However, mechanical cervical dilatation during caesarean section may result in contamination by vaginal micro-organisms during dilatation, and increase the risk of infection or cervical trauma.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of mechanical dilatation of the cervix during elective caesarean section on postoperative morbidity.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and reference lists of retrieved studies on 20 September 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised, quasi-randomised, and cluster-randomised controlled trials comparing intraoperative cervical dilatation using a finger, sponge forceps, or other instruments during elective caesarean section versus no mechanical dilatation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies with a total of 2227 women undergoing elective caesarean section. Of these, 1097 underwent intraoperative cervical dilatation with a double-gloved index finger or Hegar dilator inserted into the cervical canal to dilate, and 1130 did not undergo intraoperative cervical dilatation. Six of the eight included trials had high risk of bias for some of the risk of bias domains.Very low-quality evidence suggested it was unclear whether cervical dilatation had any impact on postpartum haemorrhage (estimated blood loss greater than 1000 mL; risk ratio (RR) 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 8.13; 5/205 versus 3/242; one study, 447 women).Low- or very low-quality evidence showed no clear difference for the need for blood transfusion (RR 3.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 33.79; two studies, 847 women); postoperative haemoglobin (mean difference (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.06; three studies, 749 women), or haematocrit (MD 0.01%, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.20; one study, 400 women); the incidence of drop from baseline haemoglobin above 0.5 g/dL (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; two studies, 722 women), or amount of haemoglobin drop (MD -0.01 g/dL, 95% -0.14 to 0.13; three studies, 796 women); the incidence of secondary postpartum haemorrhage within six weeks (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 18.76; one study, 447 women); febrile morbidity (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.85; seven studies, 2126 women); endometritis (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.52; four studies, 1536 women); or uterine subinvolution (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.36; two studies, 654 women); the results crossed the line of no effect for all of the outcomes. There were no data for cervical trauma.We found a slight improvement with mechanical dilatation for these secondary outcomes, not prespecified in the protocol: mean blood loss, endometrial cavity thickness, retained products of conception, distortion of uterine incision, and healing ratio. The evidence for these outcomes was based on one or two studies. Cervical dilatation did not have a clear effect on these secondary outcomes, not prespecified in the protocol: wound infection, urinary tract infection, operative time, infectious morbidity, and integrity of uterine scar.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At this time, the evidence does not support or refute the use of mechanical dilatation of the cervix during elective caesarean section for reducing postoperative morbidity.Further large, well-designed studies are required to compare the effect of intraoperative mechanical dilatation of the cervix with no intraoperative mechanical cervical dilatation for reducing postoperative morbidity.
Topics: Cervix Uteri; Cesarean Section; Dilatation; Elective Surgical Procedures; Endometritis; Female; Humans; Labor Stage, First; Postoperative Complications; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 30096215
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008019.pub3