-
Radiologia 2020Breast implants are associated with well-known common complications that have been widely studied, such as rupture and capsular contraction. However, the increasingly... (Review)
Review
Breast implants are associated with well-known common complications that have been widely studied, such as rupture and capsular contraction. However, the increasingly growing number of patients with breast implants has led to the increased likelihood of coming across less common complications; these include seromas or late infection; adenopathies in the internal mammary chain; granulomas in the capsule of the implant, which in some cases can extend beyond the fibrous capsule; desmoid tumors associated with the implants; and breast implant-associated large cell anaplastic lymphoma. This article aims to review the main uncommon complications associated with breast implants and to describe and illustrate their findings in different imaging techniques. Proper management of these complications is important; this is especially true of late seroma and the diagnosis of breast implant-associated large cell anaplastic lymphoma for their repercussions.
Topics: Breast Implants; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Fibroma; Granuloma, Foreign-Body; Humans; Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic; Postoperative Complications; Silicone Gels
PubMed: 32273126
DOI: 10.1016/j.rx.2020.01.008 -
Australian Journal of General Practice Sep 2019The availability of complex wound dressings following progressive innovations, increasing demand for hospital beds and the early discharge of post-operative patients...
BACKGROUND
The availability of complex wound dressings following progressive innovations, increasing demand for hospital beds and the early discharge of post-operative patients have shifted the sharing of care of such patients from hospital specialists to general practitioners (GPs). Although several published guidelines on the management of chronic wounds exist, there is a lack of similar material addressing the assessment and management of post-surgical wounds.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this article is to provide a practical guideline for identifying early complications of post-surgical wounds and managing patients with complex wound dressing systems such as vacuum-assisted closure.
DISCUSSION
Early detection of wound complications is crucial to improving patients' quality of life and reducing hospital readmission. GP competency in the proper application of complex dressings is one component that can improve these factors. Effective communication, including documentation, between hospitals, community nurses and GPs ensures smooth management of wound care for patients.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bandages; Drainage; General Practice; Hematoma; Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Postoperative Complications; Referral and Consultation; Seroma; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Sutures; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 31476832
DOI: 10.31128/AJGP-04-19-4921 -
Journal of Orthopaedics Dec 2018Morel-Lavallée lesions can occur in polytrauma patients. Post-operative seroma is more frequently encountered, holds many pathological similarities with MLLs and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Morel-Lavallée lesions can occur in polytrauma patients. Post-operative seroma is more frequently encountered, holds many pathological similarities with MLLs and continues to challenge plastic surgeons. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of MLLs to increase awareness of optimum treatment options amongst plastic surgery teams, and to provide a management algorithm that may also be applied to post-operative seromas.
METHODS
PubMed, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library were searched using the terms "Morel-Lavallée", "management" and "treatment", which yielded 52 results. One reviewer screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Seventeen full text articles were retrieved. Review of reference lists provided a further three articles for inclusion.
FINDINGS
Morel-Lavallée lesions (MLLs) represent closed injuries with internal degloving of superficial soft tissues from fascial layers. Main causes of MLLs include high-energy, blunt force trauma or crush injuries. They are commonly found overlying the greater trochanter. MLLs should be actively looked for when treating patients with pelvic trauma. MRI is the investigation of choice. Currently no guidelines for the management of MLLs exist. Compression bandaging, percutaneous aspiration, sclerodesis and mass resection have all been utilised.
CONCLUSIONS
Our algorithm recommends avoidance of conservative management. For chronic lesions, percutaneous aspiration should not be used in isolation. Sclerodesis using doxycycline is appropriate for lesions up to 400 ml, where evidence suggests high degrees of efficacy. Larger lesions should be treated with open surgery. Quilting sutures, curettage and low suction drains are useful adjuncts. We hypothesise this algorithm would also be effective for post-operative seromas.
PubMed: 30190632
DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2018.08.032 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of NPWT for preventing SSI in wounds healing through primary closure, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPWT in wounds healing through primary closure.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2021, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and references of included studies, systematic reviews and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, publication date or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and quality assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. Our primary outcomes were SSI, mortality, and wound dehiscence.
MAIN RESULTS
In this fourth update, we added 18 new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one new economic study, resulting in a total of 62 RCTs (13,340 included participants) and six economic studies. Studies evaluated NPWT in a wide range of surgeries, including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular and general procedures. All studies compared NPWT with standard dressings. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain. Primary outcomes Eleven studies (6384 participants) which reported mortality were pooled. There is low-certainty evidence showing there may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT (0.84%) compared with standard dressings (1.17%) but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefits and harm; risk ratio (RR) 0.78 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.30; I = 0%). Fifty-four studies reported SSI; 44 studies (11,403 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT probably results in fewer SSIs (8.7% of participants) than treatment with standard dressings (11.75%) after surgery; RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.85; I = 29%). Thirty studies reported wound dehiscence; 23 studies (8724 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference in dehiscence between people treated with NPWT (6.62%) and those treated with standard dressing (6.97%), although there is imprecision around the estimate that includes risk of benefit and harms; RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.16; I = 4%). Evidence was downgraded for imprecision, risk of bias, or a combination of these. Secondary outcomes There is low-certainty evidence for the outcomes of reoperation and seroma; in each case, confidence intervals included both benefit and harm. There may be a reduced risk of reoperation favouring the standard dressing arm, but this was imprecise: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.41; I = 2%; 18 trials; 6272 participants). There may be a reduced risk of seroma for people treated with NPWT but this is imprecise: the RR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.05; I = 0%; 15 trials; 5436 participants). For skin blisters, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with NPWT may be more likely to develop skin blisters compared with those treated with standard dressing (RR 3.55; 95% CI 1.43 to 8.77; I = 74%; 11 trials; 5015 participants). The effect of NPWT on haematoma is uncertain (RR 0.79; 95 % CI 0.48 to 1.30; I = 0%; 17 trials; 5909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence of little to no difference in reported pain between groups. Pain was measured in different ways and most studies could not be pooled; this GRADE assessment is based on all fourteen trials reporting pain; the pooled RR for the proportion of participants who experienced pain was 1.52 (95% CI 0.20, 11.31; I = 34%; two studies; 632 participants). Cost-effectiveness Six economic studies, based wholly or partially on trials in our review, assessed the cost-effectiveness of NPWT compared with standard care. They considered NPWT in five indications: caesarean sections in obese women; surgery for lower limb fracture; knee/hip arthroplasty; coronary artery bypass grafts; and vascular surgery with inguinal incisions. They calculated quality-adjusted life-years or an equivalent, and produced estimates of the treatments' relative cost-effectiveness. The reporting quality was good but the evidence certainty varied from moderate to very low. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT in surgery for lower limb fracture was not cost-effective at any threshold of willingness-to-pay and that NPWT is probably cost-effective in obese women undergoing caesarean section. Other studies found low or very low-certainty evidence indicating that NPWT may be cost-effective for the indications assessed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
People with primary closure of their surgical wound and treated prophylactically with NPWT following surgery probably experience fewer SSIs than people treated with standard dressings but there is probably no difference in wound dehiscence (moderate-certainty evidence). There may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT compared with standard dressings but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence). People treated with NPWT may experience more instances of skin blistering compared with standard dressing treatment (low-certainty evidence). There are no clear differences in other secondary outcomes where most evidence is low or very low-certainty. Assessments of cost-effectiveness of NPWT produced differing results in different indications. There is a large number of ongoing studies, the results of which may change the findings of this review. Decisions about use of NPWT should take into account surgical indication and setting and consider evidence for all outcomes.
Topics: Blister; Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seroma; Soft Tissue Injuries; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 35471497
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009261.pub7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2018This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001.Hernias are protrusions of all or part of an organ through the body wall that normally contains it. Groin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001.Hernias are protrusions of all or part of an organ through the body wall that normally contains it. Groin hernias include inguinal (96%) and femoral (4%) hernias, and are often symptomatic with discomfort. They are extremely common, with an estimated lifetime risk in men of 27%. Occasionally they may present as emergencies with complications such as bowel incarceration, obstruction and strangulation. The definitive treatment of all hernias is surgical repair, inguinal hernia repair being one of the most common surgical procedures performed. Mesh (hernioplasty) and the traditional non-mesh repairs (herniorrhaphy) are commonly used, with an increasing preference towards mesh repairs in high-income countries.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of different inguinal and femoral hernia repair techniques in adults, specifically comparing closure with mesh versus without mesh. Outcomes include hernia recurrence, complications (including neurovascular or visceral injury, haematoma, seroma, testicular injury, infection, postoperative pain), mortality, duration of operation, postoperative hospital stay and time to return to activities of daily living.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 9 May 2018: Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1950), Ovid Embase (from 1974) and Web of Science (from 1900). Furthermore, we checked the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials. We applied no language or publication restrictions. We also searched the reference lists of included trials and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of mesh compared to non-mesh inguinal or femoral hernia repairs in adults over the age of 18 years.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Where available, we collected information on adverse effects. We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios, and where possible we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). We presented continuous data as mean difference. Analysis of missing data was based on intention-to-treat principles, and we assessed heterogeneity using an evaluation of clinical and methodological diversity, Chi test and I statistic. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 studies (6293 participants) in this review. All included studies specified inguinal hernias, and two studies reported that femoral hernias were included.Mesh repair probably reduces the risk of hernia recurrence compared to non-mesh repair (21 studies, 5575 participants; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.80, I = 44%, moderate-quality evidence). In absolute numbers, one hernia recurrence was prevented for every 46 mesh repairs compared with non-mesh repairs. Twenty-four studies (6293 participants) assessed a wide range of complications with varying follow-up times. Neurovascular and visceral injuries were more common in non-mesh repair groups (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.76, I = 0%, NNTB = 22, high-quality evidence). Wound infection was found slightly more commonly in the mesh group (20 studies, 4540 participants; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.86, I = 0%, NNTB = 200, low-quality evidence). Mesh repair reduced the risk of haematoma compared to non-mesh repair (15 studies, 3773 participants; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13, I = 0%, NNTB = 143, low-quality evidence). Seromas probably occur more frequently with mesh repair than with non-mesh repair (14 studies, 2640 participants; RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.59, I = 0%, NNTB = 72, moderate-quality evidence), as does wound swelling (two studies, 388 participants; RR 4.56, 95% CI 1.02 to 20.48, I = 33%, NNTB = 72, moderate-quality evidence). The comparative effect on wound dehiscence is uncertain due to wide confidence intervals (two studies, 329 participants; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.48, I = 37% NNTB = 77, low-quality evidence). Testicular complications showed nearly equivocal results; they probably occurred slightly more often in the mesh group however the confidence interval around the effect was wide (14 studies, 3741 participants; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.76, I = 0%, NNTB = 2000, low-quality evidence). Mesh reduced the risk of postoperative urinary retention compared to non-mesh (eight studies, 1539 participants; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.73, I = 56%, NNTB = 16, moderate-quality evidence).Postoperative and chronic pain could not be compared due to variations in measurement methods and follow-up time (low-quality evidence).No deaths occurred during the follow-up periods reported in the seven studies (2546 participants) reporting this outcome (high-quality evidence).The average operating time was longer for non-mesh repairs by a mean of 4 minutes 22 seconds, despite wide variation across the studies regarding size and direction of effect, thus this result is uncertain (20 studies, 4148 participants; 95% CI -6.85 to -1.60, I= 97%, very low-quality evidence). Hospital stay may be shorter with mesh repair, by 0.6 days (12 studies, 2966 participants; 95% CI -0.86 to -0.34, I = 98%, low-quality evidence), and participants undergoing mesh repairs may return to normal activities of daily living a mean of 2.87 days sooner than those with non-mesh repair (10 studies, 3183 participants; 95% CI -4.42 to -1.32, I = 96%, low-quality evidence), although the results of both these outcomes are also limited by wide variation in the size and direction of effect across the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Mesh and non-mesh repairs are effective surgical approaches in treating hernias, each demonstrating benefits in different areas. Compared to non-mesh repairs, mesh repairs probably reduce the rate of hernia recurrence, and reduce visceral or neurovascular injuries, making mesh repair a common repair approach. Mesh repairs may result in a reduced length of hospital stay and time to return to activities of daily living, but these results are uncertain due to variation in the results of the studies. Non-mesh repair is less likely to cause seroma formation and has been favoured in low-income countries due to low cost and reduced availability of mesh materials. Risk of bias in the included studies was low to moderate and generally handled well by study authors, with attention to details of allocation, blinding, attrition and reporting.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Adult; Hernia, Femoral; Hernia, Inguinal; Herniorrhaphy; Humans; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Surgical Mesh
PubMed: 30209805
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011517.pub2 -
Cureus Nov 2022The pseudocyst of the auricle is an intracartilaginous lesion defined as the accumulation of sterile, straw-coloured fluid in a cyst unlined by epithelium. It is more... (Review)
Review
The pseudocyst of the auricle is an intracartilaginous lesion defined as the accumulation of sterile, straw-coloured fluid in a cyst unlined by epithelium. It is more common in males. The most common site of lesion is the scaphoid fossa and right ear. Though the aetiology remains unclear, it may be associated with mechanical irritation, repeated minor injuries and chronic trauma. If left untreated, it can lead to permanent deformity of the auricle. Pseudocyst of the auricle is a rare and challenging condition. Medical management has unfortunately shown no practical results. Hence, surgical treatment modalities are the best option. The universal aim of treatment is the conservation and restoration of the anatomical structure of the pinna, removal of cystic lesions and prevention of recurrence. Simple aspiration or incision and drainage alone lead to reaccumulation of cystic fluid in most cases. The technique of incision and drainage is the easiest but has a high recurrence rate. Conservative treatment often results in recurrence and unsatisfactory results. Other treatment modalities include incision and drainage with daily irrigation, auricular splinting, aspiration with intralesional steroid injection, aspiration followed by compression dressing, or aspiration with intralesional steroid injection followed by compression dressing and surgical deroofing, surgical deroofing followed by compression with buttons or sheet or sandwich method. Cysts with a diameter less than 1 cm are dealt with through non-surgical treatment modalities, while for cysts having a diameter greater than 1 cm, surgery is considered as first choice therapy. These treatment options have shown promising results. Various modifications in the traditional techniques have reduced the recurrence rate, successfully treated the condition and shown good cosmetic results. This review article aims at providing a holistic collection of various conventional treatment modalities and novel modifications introduced, which can be used in a sequence of definitive treatments of seroma of the auricle.
PubMed: 36505133
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.31200 -
Acta Clinica Croatica Jun 2020The most obvious indication for thyroid surgery is malignancy, but other indications are also not rare. As with any other surgical procedure, those surgeries also carry... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The most obvious indication for thyroid surgery is malignancy, but other indications are also not rare. As with any other surgical procedure, those surgeries also carry risks which can be classified as minor or major.
DISCUSSION
In this overview, we present minor (seroma, scarring) and major complications of thyroid surgery (recurrent nerve injury, hypoparathyroidism, and bleeding). We discuss the possibilities of prevention and treatment of each of those complications.
CONCLUSION
In recent years, thyroid surgery is becoming safer due to the development of new surgical, hemostatic, and other techniques such as intraoperative monitoring of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and parathyroid gland detection.
Topics: Humans; Hypocalcemia; Intraoperative Complications; Parathyroid Glands; Postoperative Complications; Thyroid Gland; Thyroidectomy
PubMed: 34219888
DOI: 10.20471/acc.2020.59.s1.10 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). While existing evidence for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). While existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT remains uncertain, new trials necessitated an updated review of the evidence for the effects of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing through primary closure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus in February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and checked reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions on language, publication date, or setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another type of NPWT.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and quality assessment according to GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
In this second update we added 25 intervention trials, resulting in a total of 30 intervention trials (2957 participants), and two economic studies nested in trials. Surgeries included abdominal and colorectal (n = 5); caesarean section (n = 5); knee or hip arthroplasties (n = 5); groin surgery (n = 5); fractures (n = 5); laparotomy (n = 1); vascular surgery (n = 1); sternotomy (n = 1); breast reduction mammoplasty (n = 1); and mixed (n = 1). In three key domains four studies were at low risk of bias; six studies were at high risk of bias; and 20 studies were at unclear risk of bias. We judged the evidence to be of low or very low certainty for all outcomes, downgrading the level of the evidence on the basis of risk of bias and imprecision.Primary outcomesThree studies reported mortality (416 participants; follow-up 30 to 90 days or unspecified). It is uncertain whether NPWT has an impact on risk of death compared with standard dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision).Twenty-five studies reported on SSI. The evidence from 23 studies (2533 participants; 2547 wounds; follow-up 30 days to 12 months or unspecified) showed that NPWT may reduce the rate of SSIs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias).Fourteen studies reported dehiscence. We combined results from 12 studies (1507 wounds; 1475 participants; follow-up 30 days to an average of 113 days or unspecified) that compared NPWT with standard dressings. It is uncertain whether NPWT reduces the risk of wound dehiscence compared with standard dressings (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.18; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and once for serious imprecision).Secondary outcomesWe are uncertain whether NPWT increases or decreases reoperation rates when compared with a standard dressing (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.63; 6 trials; 1021 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision) or if there is any clinical benefit associated with NPWT for reducing wound-related readmission to hospital within 30 days (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.57; 7 studies; 1271 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). It is also uncertain whether NPWT reduces incidence of seroma compared with standard dressings (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; 6 studies; 568 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and once for serious imprecision). It is uncertain if NPWT reduces or increases the risk of haematoma when compared with a standard dressing (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.42; 6 trials; 831 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision. It is uncertain if there is a higher risk of developing blisters when NPWT is compared with a standard dressing (RR 6.64, 95% CI 3.16 to 13.95; 6 studies; 597 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision).Quality of life was not reported separately by group but was used in two economic evaluations to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). There was no clear difference in incremental QALYs for NPWT relative to standard dressing when results from the two trials were combined (mean difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.00; moderate-certainty evidence).One trial concluded that NPWT may be more cost-effective than standard care, estimating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value of GBP 20.65 per QALY gained. A second cost-effectiveness study estimated that when compared with standard dressings NPWT was cost saving and improved QALYs. We rated the overall quality of the reports as very good; we did not grade the evidence beyond this as it was based on modelling assumptions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite the addition of 25 trials, results are consistent with our earlier review, with the evidence judged to be of low or very low certainty for all outcomes. Consequently, uncertainty remains about whether NPWT compared with a standard dressing reduces or increases the incidence of important outcomes such as mortality, dehiscence, seroma, or if it increases costs. Given the cost and widespread use of NPWT for SSI prophylaxis, there is an urgent need for larger, well-designed and well-conducted trials to evaluate the effects of newer NPWT products designed for use on clean, closed surgical incisions. Such trials should initially focus on wounds that may be difficult to heal, such as sternal wounds or incisions on obese patients.
Topics: Bandages; Blister; Hematoma; Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Orthopedic Procedures; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Seroma; Skin Transplantation; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 30912582
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009261.pub4 -
Medicine Jul 2022Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most frequently performed surgery. The ideal procedure for inguinal hernia repair remains controversial. Open Lichtenstein... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein tension-free open mesh inguinal hernia repair: A prospective randomized study.
Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most frequently performed surgery. The ideal procedure for inguinal hernia repair remains controversial. Open Lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair (LMR) is one of the most preferred open techniques with satisfactory outcomes. Laparoscopic approach in inguinal hernia surgery remains controversial, especially in comparison with open procedures. In this study, we have reported a comparison of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair with LMR. Postoperative pain, operative time, complications like seroma, wound infection, chronic groin pain, and recurrence rate were parameters to evaluate the outcome. One hundred seventy-four patients were included in the study by consecutive randomized prospective sampling. The patients were divided into 2 groups: group A, laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair, and group B, LMR. The procedures were performed by experienced surgeons. The primary outcomes were evaluated based on postoperative pain and recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes considered for evaluation were operative time, complications like seroma, infection, and chronic groin pain. Severe pain was reported in group A (7.9%) compared to group B (15.1%), which was statistically significant (P < .001). Moderate pain was reported more in group B (70.9%) compared to group A (29.5%) (P < .001). The mean operative time in group A was 84.6 ± 32.2, which was significantly higher than that in group B, 59.2 ± 14.8. There was no major complication in both groups. The chronic pain postoperatively was significantly in higher number of patients in group B vs group A (22.09% vs 3.4%). The postoperative hospital stay period was significantly lesser for group A vs for group B (2.68 ± 1.52 vs 3.86 ± 6.16). Time duration taken to resume normal activities was significantly lower in group A (13.6 ± 6.8) vs (19.8 ± 4.6) in group B (P < .001). Although there is definite evidence of longer operative time and learning curve, laparoscopic TEP has added advantages like less postoperative pain, early resumption of normal activities, less chronic groin pain, and comparable recurrence rate compared to open Lichtenstein repair. Laparoscopic TEP can be performed with acceptable outcomes and less postoperative complications if performed by experienced hands.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Hernia, Inguinal; Humans; Laparoscopy; Pain, Postoperative; Prospective Studies; Seroma; Surgical Mesh; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35777031
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029746