-
Activated Irrigation vs. Conventional non-activated Irrigation in Endodontics - A Systematic Review.European Endodontic Journal 2019Irrigant activation has been claimed to be beneficial in in vitro and clinical studies. This systematic review aims to investigate the clinical efficiency of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Irrigant activation has been claimed to be beneficial in in vitro and clinical studies. This systematic review aims to investigate the clinical efficiency of mechanically activated irrigants and conventional irrigation.
METHODS
A literature search (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018112595) was undertaken in PubMed, Cochrane and hand search. The inclusion criteria were clinical trials, in vivo/ex vivo on adult permanent teeth involving an active irrigation device and a control group of conventional irrigation. The exclusion criteria were studies done in vitro, animals and foreign language. Adult patients requiring endodontic treatment of permanent dentition and irrigant activation during the treatment were chosen as the participants and intervention respectively.
RESULTS
After removal of duplicates, 89 articles were obtained, and 72 were excluded as they did not meet the selection criteria. 6 devices (EndoVac, EndoActivator, Ultrasonic, MDA (manual dynamic agitation), CUI (Continuous Ultrasonic Irrigation) and PUI (Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation)) and 6 variables of interest (Post-operative pain, periapical healing, antibacterial efficacy, canal and/or isthmus cleanliness, debridement efficacy and delivery up to working length) were evaluated in the 17 included articles. The risk of bias and quality of the selected articles were moderate. Results showed that mechanical active irrigation reduces post-operative pain. It improved debridement, canal/isthmus cleanliness. It also improved delivery of irrigant up to working length. Bacterial count was more with active irrigation, though not significant. There is no effect on long-term periapical healing.
CONCLUSION
It may be concluded that mechanical active irrigation devices are beneficial in reducing post-operative pain and improving canal and isthmus cleanliness during Endodontics.
PubMed: 32161895
DOI: 10.14744/eej.2019.80774 -
Hip International : the Journal of... 2012Debridement and irrigation has been proposed as a salvage procedure for early post-operative and late acute haematogenous periprosthetic hip and knee infections, however... (Review)
Review
Debridement and irrigation has been proposed as a salvage procedure for early post-operative and late acute haematogenous periprosthetic hip and knee infections, however the effective ability of this procedure to avoid recurrent infection is still debated. In this systematic review of the literature we reviewed full-text papers published from 1970 through 2011, that reported the success rate of infection eradication after debridement and irrigation with prosthesis retention for the treatment of early septic complications (within six weeks from surgery) or late acute haematogenous infections after hip or knee prosthesis. In all, 14 original articles, reporting the results of 710 patients were retrieved. The average success rate has been, respectively, 45.9% and 52% after a single or repeated debridement and irrigation procedures, at a mean follow-up of 53.3 months. The methodological limitations of this study and the heterogeneous material in the reviewed papers notwithstanding, this systematic review shows that debridement and irrigation procedure is associated with a rather poor outcome, even in a population of patients selected on the basis of symptoms' duration and patients should be adequately informed prior to undergo this salvage procedure.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Debridement; Hip Joint; Hip Prosthesis; Humans; Infection Control; Knee Joint; Knee Prosthesis; Limb Salvage; Prosthesis Failure; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Secondary Prevention; Therapeutic Irrigation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 22956381
DOI: 10.5301/HIP.2012.9566 -
Hand (New York, N.Y.) Mar 2017Literature on open fracture infections has focused primarily on long bones, with limited guidelines available for open hand fractures. In this study, we systematically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Literature on open fracture infections has focused primarily on long bones, with limited guidelines available for open hand fractures. In this study, we systematically review the available hand surgery literature to determine infection rates and the effect of debridement timing and antibiotic administration. Searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane computerized literature databases and manual bibliography searches were performed. Descriptive/quantitative data were extracted, and a meta-analysis of different patient cohorts and treatment modalities was performed to compare infection rates. The initial search yielded 61 references. Twelve articles (4 prospective, 8 retrospective) on open hand fractures were included (1669 open fractures). There were 77 total infections (4.6%): 61 (4.4%) of 1391 patients received preoperative antibiotics and 16 (9.4%) of 171 patients did not receive antibiotics. In 7 studies (1106 open fractures), superficial infections (requiring oral antibiotics only) accounted for 86%, whereas deep infections (requiring operative debridement) accounted for 14%. Debridement within 6 hours of injury (2 studies, 188 fractures) resulted in a 4.2% infection rate, whereas debridement within 12 hours of injury (1 study, 193 fractures) resulted in a 3.6% infection rate. Two studies found no correlation of infection and timing to debridement. Overall, the infection rate after open hand fracture remains relatively low. Correlation does exist between the administration of antibiotics and infection, but the majority of infections can be treated with antibiotics alone. Timing of debridement, has not been shown to alter infection rates.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Debridement; Drug Administration Schedule; Fractures, Open; Hand Injuries; Humans; Surgical Wound Infection; Time Factors
PubMed: 28344521
DOI: 10.1177/1558944716643294 -
British Journal of Community Nursing Dec 2014Maggot debridement therapy is used extensively in the UK in both community and hospital situations, but remains a potentially under-used modality in many wound care... (Review)
Review
Maggot debridement therapy is used extensively in the UK in both community and hospital situations, but remains a potentially under-used modality in many wound care markets. It promotes wound healing by performing three key processes: debridement, disinfection and growth-promoting activity. It can be used for the debridement of non-healing necrotic skin and soft tissue wounds, including pressure ulcers, venous stasis ulcers, neuropathic foot ulcers and non-healing traumatic of post-surgical wounds. With the increase in chronic diabetic foot wounds, maggot debridement therapy is a promising tool for health professionals dealing with difficult wounds. This article presents an overview of the research evidence surrounding maggot debridement therapy that serves as a guide to health professionals who may be users of this form of treatment now and in the future.
Topics: Animals; Debridement; Diptera; Humans; Larva; Skin Care; Wound Healing; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 25478859
DOI: 10.12968/bjcn.2014.19.Sup12.S6 -
International Wound Journal Dec 2017Enzymatic debridement with collagenase is a technique that is commonly used in clinical practice. This systematic review examines the effect of collagenase on all kinds... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Enzymatic debridement with collagenase is a technique that is commonly used in clinical practice. This systematic review examines the effect of collagenase on all kinds of wounds, compared to an alternative therapy, on wound healing, wound bed characteristics, cost-effectiveness and the occurrence of adverse events. We conducted a systematic literature search on available literature in Cochrane databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Two investigators independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all randomised controlled trials obtained involving collagenase of all kinds of wounds based on inclusion criteria. Of the 1411 citations retrieved, 22 studies reported outcomes with the use of collagenase either for wound healing or wound debridement. Results support the use of collagenase for enzymatic debridement in pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers and in conjunction with topical antibiotics for burns. However, studies presented a high risk of bias. Risk ratio of developing an adverse event related to collagenase versus the alternative treatment was statistically significant (for 10 studies, RR: 1·79, 95% CI 1·24-2·59, I =0%, P = 0·002). There is very limited data on the effect of collagenase as an enzymatic debridement technique on wounds. More independant research and adequate reporting of adverse events are warranted.
Topics: Burns; Collagenases; Debridement; Humans; Skin Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28440050
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12760 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Dec 2021The septic arthritis of the hip is a complex condition characterized by a variety of clinical presentations, a challenging diagnosis and different surgical treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The septic arthritis of the hip is a complex condition characterized by a variety of clinical presentations, a challenging diagnosis and different surgical treatment options, including arthroscopy, resection arthroplasty and one and two-stage total hip replacement. Each technique reports variable results in terms of infection eradication rate. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the most relevant studies available in current literature and to assess if a better treatment outcome can be predicted based on the microbiology, history, and type of infection (active vs quiescent) of each case.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, including the studies dealing with the treatment of hip septic arthritis in adult patients. Electronic databases, namely the MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science, were reviewed using a combination of following keywords "septic arthritis" AND "hip joint" OR "hip" AND "adult".
RESULTS
The total number of patients included in this review was 1236 (45% of which females), for 1238 hips. The most common pathogen isolated was Staphylococcus aureus in its Methicillin-sensitive variant ranging from 2 to 37% of cases. Negative cultures were the second most common finding. It was also differentiated the type of infection of the hip, 809 and 417 patients with active and quiescent hip infection, respectively, were analyzed. Eradication rates for two-stage revision arthroplasty ranged between 85 and 100%, for one-stage approach between 94 and 100%, while for arthroscopic debridement/lavage between 89 and 100%.
CONCLUSION
Staphylococcus aureus is the most common microorganism isolated followed by culture negative infections. Arthroscopic, one and two stage procedures can be effective in the treatment of hip septic arthritis when the indication is consistent with the type of infection retrieved.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
IV, therapeutic study.
Topics: Arthritis, Infectious; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroscopy; Debridement; Female; Hip Joint; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Staphylococcal Infections; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34856966
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04843-z -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Nov 2019To provide a complete overview of all burn debridement techniques studied in recent literature and to find the best evidence with regard to efficiency and safety.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a complete overview of all burn debridement techniques studied in recent literature and to find the best evidence with regard to efficiency and safety.
METHOD
A systematic review was performed. Searches were conducted in electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Academic Search Premier. All studies published from 1990 onwards, on the efficiency and/or safety of burn debridement techniques in patients with thermal burn injuries of any age, were included. Primary outcomes were time to complete wound healing and time to complete debridement. Randomized trials were critically appraised.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies, including four randomized clinical trials, were included. Time to wound healing in the conventional tangential excision (seven studies), hydrosurgery (eight studies), enzymatic debridement (eleven studies), and shock waves group (one study) ranged from 13-30, 11-13, 19-33, and 16 days, respectively. Time to complete debridement ranged from 5-10, 4-23, and 1-9 days, respectively. Furthermore, secondary outcomes (including grafting, mortality, and scar quality) were compared between the debridement categories.
CONCLUSION
Convincing evidence in favor of any of these techniques is currently lacking. Future studies regarding (new) debridement techniques need to use standardized and validated outcome measurement tools to allow improved standardization and comparisons across studies.
Topics: Burns; Debridement; Humans
PubMed: 31515194
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2019.07.006 -
Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and... Apr 2021To analyze the available literature pertaining to the indications, outcomes, and complications of both microfracture (MFX) and simple debridement for capitellar... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To analyze the available literature pertaining to the indications, outcomes, and complications of both microfracture (MFX) and simple debridement for capitellar osteochondritis dissecans (OCD).
METHODS
A comprehensive literature review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Studies were included if they evaluated OCD of the capitellum that underwent either arthroscopic debridement (AD) or MFX. The risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) scale. Patient demographic characteristics, imaging findings, return-to-sport rates, patient-reported outcomes, range of motion (ROM), complications, failures, and reoperations were recorded.
RESULTS
Eleven studies with 327 patients (332 elbows) met the inclusion criteria. Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) scores ranged from 63% to 75% and showed considerable heterogeneity. Both AD and MFX showed improvement in patient outcome scores, ROM, and return to play, although the data precluded relative conclusions. Improvement in motion after MFX ranged from 4.9° to 5° of flexion, 5° to 22.6° of extension, 1° to 2° of pronation, and 0.5° to 2° of supination, whereas after AD, it ranged from -4° to 6° of flexion and -0.4° to 14° of extension, with prono-supination noted in only 1 study. The rate of return to play at a similar level of preinjury athletic competition ranged from 55% to 75% after MFX and from 40% to 100% after AD. Lesion location was discussed in only 1 study. Postoperative imaging trended toward early degenerative changes, most commonly of the radial head. Complications were only reported in 1 MFX study; in all cases, the complication was transient ulnar nerve neurapraxia. Reoperation rates ranged from 0% to 10%, and reoperation was most commonly performed to address radial head enlargement. Five studies reported no reoperations.
CONCLUSIONS
Both AD and MFX for capitellar OCD appear to yield excellent improvements in pain, ROM, patient outcome scores, and return to sport. Given that comparable mid-term outcomes can be achieved with debridement alone, without the use of MFX, similarly to recent prospective studies in the knee, AD alone may be a reasonable approach to relatively small OCD defects.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV, systematic review of studies, all Level IV evidence.
PubMed: 34027472
DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2020.10.002 -
Spine Aug 2023Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To determine a pooled incidence rate for deep surgical site infection (SSI) and compare available evidence for deep SSI management among instrumented spinal fusions.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Deep SSI is a common complication of instrumented spinal surgery associated with patient morbidity, poorer long-term outcomes, and higher health care costs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We systematically searched Medline and Embase and included studies with an adult patient population undergoing posterior instrumented spinal fusion of the thoracic, lumbar, or sacral spine, with a reported outcome of deep SSI. The primary outcome was the incidence of deep SSI. Secondary outcomes included persistent deep SSI after initial debridement, mean number of debridements, and microbiology. The subsequent meta-analysis combined outcomes for surgical site infection using a random-effects model and quantified heterogeneity using the χ 2 test and the I2 statistic. In addition, a qualitative analysis of management strategies was reported.
RESULTS
Of 9087 potentially eligible studies, we included 54 studies (37 comparative and 17 noncomparative). The pooled SSI incidence rate was 1.5% (95% CI, 1.1%-1.9%) based on 209,347 index procedures. Up to 25% of patients (95% CI, 16.8%-35.3%), had a persistent infection. These patients require an average of 1.4 (range: 0.8-1.9) additional debridements. Infecting organisms were commonly gram-positive, and among them, staphylococcus aureus was the most frequent (46%). Qualitative analysis suggests implant retention, especially for early deep SSI management. Evidence was limited for other management strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
The pooled incidence rate of deep SSI post-thoracolumbar spinal surgery is 1.5%. The rate of recurrence and repeat debridement is at least 12%, up to 25%. Persistent infection is a significant risk, highlighting the need for standardized treatment protocols. Our review further demonstrates heterogeneity in management strategies. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to develop better evidence around deep SSI incidence and management in the instrumented thoracolumbar adult spinal fusion population.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Surgical Wound Infection; Incidence; Persistent Infection; Spine; Staphylococcal Infections; Spinal Fusion; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37163651
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004713 -
EFORT Open Reviews Dec 2020Primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the elbow can cause disabling symptoms of pain, locking, stiffness, and a limitation in the range of motion. There is no consensus... (Review)
Review
Primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the elbow can cause disabling symptoms of pain, locking, stiffness, and a limitation in the range of motion. There is no consensus regarding the role of open and arthroscopic debridement in the treatment of symptomatic primary elbow OA. The aim of this study is to systematically review the outcome of surgical debridement. A preoperative/postoperative comparison will be made between the two surgical procedures.All studies reporting on debridement as treatment for primary elbow OA with a minimum of one-year follow-up were included. Outcome parameters were functional results, complications, and performance scores.Data were extracted from 21 articles. The arthroscopic group consisted of 286 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 40 ± 17 months (range, 16-75). The open group consisted of 300 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 55 ± 20 months (range, 19-85). Both procedures showed improvement in Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), range of motion (ROM) flexion-extension, and ROM pronation-supination. Only in ROM flexion was a statistically significant difference in improvement seen between the groups in favour of the open group. The arthroscopic group showed improvement in pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Nothing could be stated about pain VAS scores in the open group due to a lack of data. In the arthroscopic group 18 complications (6%) were described, in the open group 29 complications (12%).Surgical debridement is an effective treatment for the disabling symptoms of primary elbow OA with an acceptable complication rate. Cite this article: 2020;5:874-882. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190095.
PubMed: 33425376
DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190095