-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014BackgroundPubic or perineal shaving is a procedure performed before birth in order to lessen the risk of infection if there is a spontaneous perinealtear or if an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BackgroundPubic or perineal shaving is a procedure performed before birth in order to lessen the risk of infection if there is a spontaneous perinealtear or if an episiotomy is performed.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of routine perineal shaving before birth onmaternal and neonatal outcomes, according to the best available evidence.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (12 June 2014).Selection criteriaAll controlled trials (including quasi-randomised) that compare perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed all potential studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data using apredesigned form. Data were checked for accuracy.Main resultsThree randomised controlled trials (1039 women) published between 1922 and 2005 fulfilled the prespecified criteria. In the earliesttrial, 389 women were alternately allocated to receive either skin preparation and perineal shaving or clipping of vulval hair only. In thesecond trial, which included 150 participants, perineal shaving was compared with the cutting of long hairs for procedures only. In thethird and most recent trial, 500 women were randomly allocated to shaving of perineal area or cutting of perineal hair. The primaryoutcome for all three trials was maternal febrile morbidity; no differences were found (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval(CI) 0.73 to 1.76). No differences were found in terms of perineal wound infection (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.70) and perinealwound dehiscence (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.00) in the most recent trial involving 500 women, which was the only trial to assessthese outcomes. In the smallest trial, fewer women who had not been shaved had Gram-negative bacterial colonisation compared withwomen who had been shaved (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98). There were no instances of neonatal infection in either group in theone trial that reported this outcome. There were no differences in maternal satisfaction between groups in the larger trial reporting this outcome (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.13). No trial reported on perineal trauma. One trial reported on side-effectsand these included irritation, redness, burning and itching.The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low (for the outcomes postpartum maternal febrile morbidity and neonatal infection)to low (for the outcome maternal satisfaction and wound infection).Authors’ conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to recommend perineal shaving for women on admission in labour.
Topics: Confidence Intervals; Female; Hair Removal; Humans; Labor, Obstetric; Odds Ratio; Patient Admission; Patient Satisfaction; Perineum; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25398160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001236.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Groin dissection is commonly performed for the treatment of a variety of cancers, including melanoma, and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, penis or vulva. It is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Groin dissection is commonly performed for the treatment of a variety of cancers, including melanoma, and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, penis or vulva. It is uncertain whether insertion of a drain reduces complication rates, and, if used, the optimum time for drain removal after surgery is also unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the current level of evidence to determine whether placement of a drain is beneficial after groin dissection in terms of reducing seroma, haematoma, wound dehiscence and wound infection rates, and to determine the optimal type and duration of drainage following groin dissection if it is shown to be beneficial.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2014 we searched the following electronic databases using a pre-designed search strategy: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library). In November 2013 we searched Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We did not restrict the search and study selection with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound drainage with no wound drainage in individuals undergoing groin dissection, where the most superior node excised was Cloquet's node (the most superior inguinal lymph node). No limits were applied to language of publication or trial location. Two review authors independently determined the eligibility of each trial.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors, working independently, screened studies identified from the search; there were no disagreements.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a need for high quality RCTs to guide clinical practice in this under-researched area.
Topics: Adult; Drainage; Groin; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Neoplasms
PubMed: 25387103
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010933.pub2