-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint is one of the most common shoulder injuries in a sport-active population. The question of whether surgery should be used... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint is one of the most common shoulder injuries in a sport-active population. The question of whether surgery should be used remains controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of surgical versus conservative (non-surgical) interventions for treating acromioclavicular dislocations in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (to June 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to June 2019), Embase (1980 to June 2019), and LILACS (1982 to June 2019), trial registries, and reference lists of articles. There were no restrictions based on language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared surgical with conservative treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently performed study screening and selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five randomised trials and one quasi-randomised trial. The included trials involved 357 mainly young adults, the majority of whom were male, with acute acromioclavicular dislocation. The strength of the findings in all studies was limited due to design features, invariably lack of blinding, that carry a high risk of bias. Fixation of the acromioclavicular joint using hook plates, tunnelled suspension devices, coracoclavicular screws, acromioclavicular pins, or (usually threaded) wires was compared with supporting the arm in a sling or similar device. After surgery, the arm was also supported in a sling or similar device in all trials. Where described in the trials, both groups had exercise-based rehabilitation. We downgraded the evidence for all outcomes at least two levels, invariably for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision.Low-quality evidence from two studies showed no evidence of a difference between groups in shoulder function at one year, assessed using the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH) (0 (best function) to 100 (worst function)): mean difference (MD) 0.73 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.70 to 4.16; 112 participants. These results were consistent with other measures of function at one-year or longer follow-up, including non-validated outcome scores reported by three studies. There is low-quality evidence that function at six weeks may be better after conservative treatment, indicating an earlier recovery. Very low-quality evidence from one trial found no difference between groups in participants reporting pain at one year: risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.19; 79 participants. There is very low-quality evidence that surgery may not reduce the risk of treatment failure, usually resulting in non-routine secondary surgery: 14/168 versus 15/174; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.94; 342 participants, 6 studies. The main source of treatment failure was complications related to surgical implants in the surgery group and persistent symptoms, mainly discomfort, due to the acromioclavicular dislocation in the conservatively treated group.There is low-quality evidence from two studies that there may be little or no difference between groups in the return to former activities (sports or work) at one year: 57/67 versus 62/70; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10; 137 participants, 2 studies. Low-quality but consistent evidence from four studies indicated an earlier recovery in conservatively treated participants compared with those treated with surgery. There is low-quality evidence of no clinically important difference between groups at one year in quality of life scores, measured using the 36-item or 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36 or SF-12) (0-to-100 scale, where 100 is best score), in either the physical component (MD -0.63, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.37; 122 participants, 2 studies) or mental component (MD 0.47 points, 95% CI -1.51 to 2.44; 122 participants). There is very low-quality and clinically heterogenous evidence of a greater risk of an adverse event after surgery: 45/168 versus 16/174; RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.82; 342 participants, 6 studies; I = 48%. Common adverse outcomes were hardware complications or discomfort (18.5%) and infection (8.7%) in the surgery group and persistent symptoms (7.1%), mainly discomfort, in the conservatively treated group. The majority of surgical complications occurred in older studies testing now-outdated devices known for their high risk of complications. The very low-quality evidence from one study (70 participants) means that we are uncertain whether there is a between-group difference in patient dissatisfaction with cosmetic results.It is notable that the evidence for function, return to former activities, and quality of life came from the two most recently conducted studies, which tested currently used devices and interventions in clearly defined participant populations that represented the commonly perceived population for which there is uncertainty over the use of surgery. There were insufficient data to conduct subgroup analysis relating to type of injury and whether surgery involved ligament reconstruction or not.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low-quality evidence that surgical treatment has no additional benefits in terms of function, return to former activities, and quality of life at one year compared with conservative treatment. There is, however, low-quality evidence that people treated conservatively had improved function at six weeks compared with surgical management. There is very low-quality evidence of little difference between the two treatments in pain at one year, treatment failure usually resulting in secondary surgery, or patient satisfaction with cosmetic result. Although surgery may result in more people sustaining adverse events, this varied between the trials, being more common in techniques such as K-wire fixation that are rarely used today. There remains a need to consider the balance of risks between the individual outcomes: for example, surgical adverse events, including wound infection or dehiscence and hardware complication, against risk of adverse events that may be more commonly associated with conservative treatment such as persistent symptoms or discomfort, or both.There is a need for sufficiently powered, good-quality, well-reported randomised trials of currently used surgical interventions versus conservative treatment for well-defined injuries.
PubMed: 31604007
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007429.pub3 -
Journal of Pediatric Surgery May 2021Tissue adhesive (TiA), adhesive tape (AdT), and sutures can be used to close surgical wounds and lacerations in children. However, it is unclear which technique produces... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tissue adhesive (TiA), adhesive tape (AdT), and sutures can be used to close surgical wounds and lacerations in children. However, it is unclear which technique produces the best results.
METHODS
In this prospectively registered study, the PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database, and ScienceDirect databases were searched. English language studies published between January 1980 and August 2017 evaluating TiA and/or AdT for primary skin closure of surgical wounds or lacerations in patients aged ≤18 years were included. Study endpoints included clinician-rated wound cosmesis and incidence of wound complications.
RESULTS
Thirty-one studies were included in the systematic review and 16 studies in the meta-analysis. Amongst heterogeneous studies, AdT yielded marginally better cosmetic outcomes than TiA (p = 0.04). There was no difference in cosmesis between sutured wounds and those closed with TiA (p = 0.2). No difference in overall risk of wound infection or dehiscence was identified when comparing TiA with AdT (p = 0.3), and TiA with sutures (p = 0.9 and 0.3 respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
TiA, AdT, and sutures can all be used for wound closure with equivalent risk of wound infection and dehiscence. AdT appears to convey better cosmesis. Further adequately powered studies directly comparing techniques are required.
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE
Level IV.
Topics: Child; Humans; Surgical Tape; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Sutures; Tissue Adhesives
PubMed: 32888718
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.07.037 -
Surgery Nov 2023Despite guideline recommendations, routine application of topical antibiotic agents to sternal edges after cardiac surgery is seldom done. Recent randomized controlled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite guideline recommendations, routine application of topical antibiotic agents to sternal edges after cardiac surgery is seldom done. Recent randomized controlled trials have also questioned the effectiveness of topical vancomycin in sternal wound infection prophylaxis.
METHODS
We screened multiple databases for observational studies and randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of topical vancomycin. Random effects meta-analysis and risk-profile regression were performed, and randomized controlled trials and observational studies were analyzed separately. The primary endpoint was sternal wound infection; other wound complications were also analyzed. Risk ratios served as primary statistics.
RESULTS
Twenty studies (N = 40,871) were included, of which 7 were randomized controlled trials (N = 2,187). The risk of sternal wound infection was significantly reduced by almost 70% in the topical vancomycin group (risk ratios [95% confidence intervals]: 0.31 (0.23-0.43); P < .00001) and was comparable between randomized controlled trials (0.37 [0.21-0.64]; P < .0001) and observational studies (0.30 [0.20-0.45]; P < .00001; P = .57). Topical vancomycin significantly reduced the risk of superficial sternal wound infections (0.29 [0.15-0.53]; P < .00001) and deep sternal wound infections (0.29 [0.19-0.44]; P < .00001). A reduction in the risk of mediastinitis and sternal dehiscence risks was also demonstrated. Risk profile meta-regression showed a significant relationship between a higher risk of sternal wound infection and a higher benefit accrued with topical vancomycin (ß-coeff. = -0.00837; P < .0001). The number needed to treat was 58.2. A significant benefit was observed in patients with diabetes mellitus (risk ratios 0.21 [0.11-0.39]; P < .00001). There was no evidence of vancomycin or methicillin resistance; on the contrary, the risk of gram-negative cultures was reduced by over 60% (risk ratios 0.38 [0.22-0.66]; P = .0006).
CONCLUSION
Topical vancomycin effectively reduces the risk of sternal wound infection in cardiac surgery patients.
Topics: Humans; Vancomycin; Surgical Wound Infection; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Sternum
PubMed: 37414589
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.05.031 -
Surgery Sep 2022Wound complications are a common cause of postoperative morbidity and incur significant healthcare costs. Recent studies have shown that negative pressure wound... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Wound complications are a common cause of postoperative morbidity and incur significant healthcare costs. Recent studies have shown that negative pressure wound dressings reduce wound complication rates, particularly surgical site infections, after elective laparotomies. The clinical utility of prophylactic negative pressure wound dressings for closed emergency laparotomy incisions remains controversial. This meta-analysis investigated the rates of wound complications after emergency laparotomy when a negative pressure wound dressing was applied.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Registry, Web of Science, and Clinialtrials.gov databases were searched from January 1, 2005, to April 1, 2022. All studies comparing negative pressure wound dressings to standard dressings on closed emergency laparotomy incisions were included.
RESULTS
A total of 1,199 (negative pressure wound dressings: 566, standard dressing: 633) patients from 7 (prospective: 4, retrospective: 3) studies were identified. Overall, the surgical site infection (superficial/deep) rate was 13.6% (77/566) vs 25.1% (159/633) in the negative pressure wound dressing versus standard dressing groups, respectively (odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.62). Wound breakdown (skin/fascial dehiscence) was significantly lower in the negative pressure wound dressing (7.7%) group compared to the standard dressing (16.9%) group (odds ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.72). The incidence of overall wound complications was significantly lower in the negative pressure wound dressing (15.9%) group compared to the standard dressing (30.4%) group (odds ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.59). No significant differences were found in hospital length-of-stay and readmission rates.
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic negative pressure wound dressings for closed emergency laparotomy incisions were associated with a significant reduction in surgical site infections, wound breakdown, and overall wound complications, thus supporting its clinical use.
Topics: Bandages; Humans; Laparotomy; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 35779950
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.05.020 -
Journal of Cranio-maxillo-facial... Apr 2019Immediately after cleft lip repair, breastfeeding and bottle-feeding are generally restricted to avoid placing tension on the surgical incision. However, no consensus...
BACKGROUND
Immediately after cleft lip repair, breastfeeding and bottle-feeding are generally restricted to avoid placing tension on the surgical incision. However, no consensus about feeding methods after cleft lip repair has been reached. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the impact of breastfeeding and/or bottle-feeding on surgical wound dehiscence after cleft lip repair in infants.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Mednar from October to November 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility for inclusion and checked critical appraisal of the study quality.
RESULTS
Three randomized controlled trials and two cohort studies involving 342 infants were included in this review. Two cases of surgical wound dehiscence occurred in the control group of alternative feeding. In three of five studies, surgical wound dehiscence did not occur in either the intervention or control group within the first week postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS
This review showed no increased risk of surgical wound dehiscence in infants with breastfeeding and/or bottle-feeding after cleft lip repair compared with infants with alternative feeding methods. It may not be necessary to restrict breastfeeding and/or bottle-feeding immediately after cleft lip repair.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Cleft Lip; Cohort Studies; Feeding Methods; Humans; Infant; Surgical Wound Dehiscence
PubMed: 30737178
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2019.01.019 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Dec 2023To mitigate pelvic wound issues following perineal excision of rectal or anal cancer, a number of techniques have been suggested as an alternative to primary closure.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To mitigate pelvic wound issues following perineal excision of rectal or anal cancer, a number of techniques have been suggested as an alternative to primary closure. These methods include the use of a biological/dual mesh, omentoplasty, muscle flap, and/or pelvic peritoneum closure. The aim of this network analysis was to compare all the available surgical techniques used in the attempt to mitigate issues associated with an empty pelvis.
METHODS
An electronic systematic search using MEDLINE databases (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed (Last date of research was March 15th, 2023). Studies comparing at least two of the aforementioned surgical techniques for perineal wound reconstruction during abdominoperineal resection, pelvic exenteration, or extra levator abdominoperineal excision were included. The incidence of primary healing, complication, and/or reintervention for perineal wound were evaluated. In addition, the overall incidence of perineal hernia was assessed.
RESULTS
Forty-five observational studies and five randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion reporting on 146,398 patients. All the surgical techniques had a comparable risk ratio (RR) in terms of primary outcomes. The pooled network analysis showed a lower RR for perineal wound infection when comparing primary closure (RR 0.53; Crl 0.33, 0.89) to muscle flap. The perineal wound dehiscence RR was lower when comparing both omentoplasty (RR 0.59; Crl 0.38, 0.95) and primary closure (RR 0.58; Crl 0.46, 0.77) to muscle flap.
CONCLUSIONS
Surgical options for perineal wound closure have evolved significantly over the last few decades. There remains no clear consensus on the "best" option, and tailoring to the individual remains a critical factor.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Perineum; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 37843643
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02868-1 -
Otology & Neurotology : Official... Dec 2021To identify perioperative surgical factors associated with wound complications following cochlear implantation (CI). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To identify perioperative surgical factors associated with wound complications following cochlear implantation (CI).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases.
STUDY SELECTION
Eligible studies included peer-reviewed research in English evaluating wound complications (wound infection, skin flap breakdown/dehiscence, seroma/hematoma) following CI. Studies with paired samples were included in the meta-analysis.
DATA EXTRACTION
Surgical factors (techniques and perioperative management) in CI and reported wound complications were examined. Level of evidence was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine guidelines and bias was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Twenty-six studies representing 10,214 cochlear implantations were included. The overall wound complications rate was 3.1% (range 0.03-13.9%). Eleven studies contained paired data and were used for meta-analysis regarding three different surgical factors: incision length, implant placement method, and antibiotic usage. Longer incision lengths (≥7 cm) demonstrated a higher risk of wound complications (risk ratio 2.27, p = 0.02, CI 1.16-4.43). Different implant placement techniques (suture fixation versus periosteal pocket) (p = 0.08, CI 0.92-3.69) and postoperative antibiotic regimens (postoperative use versus none) (p = 0.68, CI = 0.28-7.18) were not associated with differences in wound complication rates following CI.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall rate of wound complications following CI is low. Shorter incision length is associated with lower risk of wound complications. Differences in perioperative techniques and practices regarding implant placement and antibiotic use were not associated with differences in wound complication rates. Considering the low number and quality of studies, there is a need for research in CI outcomes using paired sample prospective designs and standardized reporting.
Topics: Cochlear Implantation; Humans; Prospective Studies; Seroma; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 34607994
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003325 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Jan 2022Wound closure in the head and neck region is challenging, primarily due to aesthetic concerns. Tissue adhesives have been prized for their ease of use. This study aimed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Wound closure in the head and neck region is challenging, primarily due to aesthetic concerns. Tissue adhesives have been prized for their ease of use. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of tissue adhesives as a suitable alternative to other conventional wound closure techniques, in the head and neck region.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines. Available English literature from 2009 to 2019 was reviewed from PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar. Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials with wounds in the head and neck region were included in this study.
RESULTS
Sixteen articles were found to meet the inclusion criteria. Main outcomes assessed included the following: cosmesis, pain, swelling, bleeding, wound dehiscence, time and cost. There was significant heterogeneity in results for pain, swelling and bleeding. No significant difference was observed in wound dehiscence and long-term cosmetic outcome when tissue adhesives were compared with sutures and staples. The time taken for wound closure with tissue adhesives was faster than sutures but were conflicted when compared with staples. Cost was found to be similar.
CONCLUSION
Overall, there is a consensus that there is no long-term difference in cosmetic outcome and wound dehiscence between tissue adhesives and other wound closure techniques. Tissue adhesives have the benefit of being easy and quick to use with excellent patient satisfaction levels. We recommend tissue adhesives as a suitable alternative for wound closure in low tension areas in the head and neck region.
Topics: Cyanoacrylates; Humans; Pain; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suture Techniques; Sutures; Tissue Adhesives; Wound Closure Techniques
PubMed: 34657822
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.08.015 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022There are several possible interventions for managing pressure ulcers (sometimes referred to as pressure injuries), ranging from pressure-relieving measures, such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are several possible interventions for managing pressure ulcers (sometimes referred to as pressure injuries), ranging from pressure-relieving measures, such as repositioning, to reconstructive surgery. The surgical approach is usually reserved for recalcitrant wounds (where the healing process has stalled, or the wound is not responding to treatment) or wounds with full-thickness skin loss and exposure of deeper structures such as muscle fascia or bone. Reconstructive surgery commonly involves wound debridement followed by filling the wound with new tissue. Whilst this is an accepted means of ulcer management, the benefits and harms of different surgical approaches, compared with each other or with non-surgical treatments, are unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different types of reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers (category/stage II or above), compared with no surgery or alternative reconstructive surgical approaches, in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed reconstructive surgery in the treatment of pressure ulcers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted study data, assessed the risk of bias and undertook GRADE assessments. We would have involved a third review author in case of disagreement.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified one RCT conducted in a hospital setting in the USA. It enrolled 20 participants aged between 20 and 70 years with stage IV ischial or sacral pressure ulcers (involving full-thickness skin and tissue loss). The study compared two reconstructive techniques for stage IV pressure ulcers: conventional flap surgery and cone of pressure flap surgery, in which a large portion of the flap tip is de-epithelialised and deeply inset to obliterate dead space. There were no clear data for any of our outcomes, although we extracted some information on complete wound healing, wound dehiscence, pressure ulcer recurrence and wound infection. We graded the evidence for these outcomes as very low-certainty. The study provided no data for any other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently there is very little randomised evidence on the role of reconstructive surgery in pressure ulcer management, although it is considered a priority area. More rigorous and robust research is needed to explore this intervention.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Debridement; Humans; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Wound Healing; Young Adult
PubMed: 36228111
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012032.pub3 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Aug 2022We aimed to systematically determine the incidences of wound infection and dehiscence after primary obstetric anal sphincter injury repair. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to systematically determine the incidences of wound infection and dehiscence after primary obstetric anal sphincter injury repair.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, EmCare, the Cochrane Library, and Trip Pro databases were searched from inception to February 2021.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included observational clinical studies reporting the incidences of wound infection and dehiscence after primary obstetric anal sphincter injury repair. Case series and reports were excluded. Conference articles and observational study abstracts were included if they contained enough information regarding study design and outcome data.
METHODS
Data were analyzed as incidence (percentage) with 95% confidence intervals. Moreover, the prediction intervals were calculated to provide a predicted range for the potential incidence of wound complications when applied to an individual study setting. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the relevant tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute.
RESULTS
Of 956 studies found, 39 were selected for full-text review. Moreover, 10 studies (n=4767 women) were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. All 10 studies were conducted in high-income countries (Denmark [n=1], the United Kingdom [n=3], and the United States [n=6]). The incidences of wound infection (n=4593 women) and wound dehiscence (n=3866 women) after primary obstetric anal sphincter injury repair ranged between 0.1% to 19.8% and 1.9% to 24.6%, respectively. The overall incidences were 4.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.4-8.4) for wound infection and 6.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.6-12.2) for wound dehiscence. The prediction intervals were wide and suggested that the true incidences of wound infection and dehiscence in future studies could lie between 0.0% to 11.7% and 0.0% to 16.4%, respectively. Overall, 8 studies had a high or unclear risk of bias across ≥1 assessed element. None of the studies used the same set of clinical parameters to define wound infection or dehiscence. Furthermore, microbiological confirmation with wound swabs was never used as a diagnostic measure.
CONCLUSION
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of wound infection and dehiscence incidences after primary obstetric anal sphincter injury repair. The incidence estimates from this review will be useful for clinicians when counseling women with obstetric anal sphincter injury and when consenting them for primary surgical repair.
Topics: Anal Canal; Delivery, Obstetric; Fecal Incontinence; Female; Humans; Incidence; Observational Studies as Topic; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Pregnancy; United Kingdom; Wound Infection
PubMed: 35550375
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.05.012