-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Surgeons who perform laparotomy have a number of decisions to make regarding abdominal closure. Material and size of potential suture types varies widely. In addition,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgeons who perform laparotomy have a number of decisions to make regarding abdominal closure. Material and size of potential suture types varies widely. In addition, surgeons can choose to close the incision in anatomic layers or mass ('en masse'), as well as using either a continuous or interrupted suturing technique, of which there are different styles of each. There is ongoing debate as to which suturing techniques and suture materials are best for achieving definitive wound closure while minimising the risk of short- and long-term complications.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review were to identify the best available suture techniques and suture materials for closure of the fascia following laparotomy incisions, by assessing the following comparisons: absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures; mass versus layered closure; continuous versus interrupted closure techniques; monofilament versus multifilament sutures; and slow absorbable versus fast absorbable sutures. Our objective was not to determine the single best combination of suture material and techniques, but to compare the individual components of abdominal closure.
SEARCH METHODS
On 8 February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two trials registries, and Science Citation Index. There were no limitations based on language or date of publication. We searched the reference lists of all included studies to identify trials that our searches may have missed.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared suture materials or closure techniques, or both, for fascial closure of laparotomy incisions. We excluded trials that compared only types of skin closures, peritoneal closures or use of retention sutures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each trial. We calculated a summary risk ratio (RR) for the outcomes assessed in the review, all of which were dichotomous. We used random-effects modelling, based on the heterogeneity seen throughout the studies and analyses. We completed subgroup analysis planned a priori for each outcome, excluding studies where interventions being compared differed by more than one component, making it impossible to determine which variable impacted on the outcome, or the possibility of a synergistic effect. We completed sensitivity analysis, excluding trials with at least one trait with high risk of bias. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADEpro guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-five RCTs with a total of 19,174 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in the type of sutures used, methods of closure and patient population. Many of the included studies reported multiple comparisons.For our primary outcome, the proportion of participants who developed incisional hernia at one year or more of follow-up, we did not find evidence that suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.35, very low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35, moderate-quality evidence) resulted in a difference in the risk of incisional hernia. We did, however, find evidence to suggest that monofilament sutures reduced the risk of incisional hernia when compared with multifilament sutures (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98, I = 30%, moderate-quality evidence).For our secondary outcomes, we found that none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound infection, whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.57, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.34, moderate-quality evidence).Similarily, none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound dehiscence whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.10, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.61, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.64, moderate-quality evidence).Absorbable sutures, compared with non-absorbable sutures (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) reduced the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation. None of the other comparisons showed a difference (slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.05 to 16.05, very low-quality evidence; mass versus layered, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62, low-quality evidence; continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.61, very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on this moderate-quality body of evidence, monofilament sutures may reduce the risk of incisional hernia. Absorbable sutures may also reduce the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation, but this finding is based on low-quality evidence.We had serious concerns about the design or reporting of several of the 55 included trials. The comparator arms in many trials differed by more than one component, making it impossible to attribute differences between groups to any one component. In addition, the patient population included in many of the studies was very heterogeneous. Trials included both emergency and elective cases, different types of disease pathology (e.g. colon surgery, hepatobiliary surgery, etc.) or different types of incisions (e.g. midline, paramedian, subcostal).Consequently, larger, high-quality trials to further address this clinical challenge are warranted. Future studies should ensure that proper randomisation and allocation techniques are performed, wound assessors are blinded, and that the duration of follow-up is adequate. It is important that only one type of intervention is compared between groups. In addition, a homogeneous patient population would allow for a more accurate assessment of the interventions.
Topics: Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques; Fistula; Humans; Incisional Hernia; Laparotomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Suture Techniques; Sutures
PubMed: 29099149
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005661.pub2 -
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 -
World Journal of Surgery Dec 2022Fascial dehiscence (FD) and incisional hernia (IH) pose considerable risks to patients who undergo abdominal surgery, and many preventive strategies have been applied to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fascial dehiscence (FD) and incisional hernia (IH) pose considerable risks to patients who undergo abdominal surgery, and many preventive strategies have been applied to reduce this risk. An accurate predictive model could aid identification of high-risk patients, who could be targeted for particular care. This study aims to systematically review existing FD and IH prediction models.
METHODS
Prediction models were identified using pre-specified search terms on SCOPUS, PubMed, and Web of Science. Eligible studies included those conducted in adult patients who underwent any kind of abdominal surgery, and reported model performance. Data from the eligible studies were extracted, and the risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Pooling of C-statistics was performed using a random-effect meta-analysis. [Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021282463)].
RESULTS
Twelve studies were eligible for review; five were FD prediction model studies. Most included studies had high RoB, especially in the analysis domain. The C-statistics of the FD and IH prediction models ranged from 0.69 to 0.92, but most have yet to be externally validated. Pooled C-statistics (95% CI) were 0.80 (0.74, 0.86) and 0.81 (0.75, 0.86) for the FD (external-validation) and IH prediction model, respectively. Some predictive factors such as body mass index, smoking, emergency operation, and surgical site infection were associated with FD or IH occurrence and were included in multiple models.
CONCLUSIONS
Several models have been developed as an aid for FD and IH prediction, mostly with modest performance and lacking independent validation. New models for specific patient groups may offer clinical utility.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Incisional Hernia; Surgical Wound Infection; Bias
PubMed: 36102959
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-022-06715-6 -
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 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2021(1) Background: Caesarean sections in obese patients are associated with an increased risk of surgical wound complications, including hematomas, seromas, abscesses,... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Caesarean sections in obese patients are associated with an increased risk of surgical wound complications, including hematomas, seromas, abscesses, dehiscence, and surgical site infections. The aim of the present study is to perform a meta-analysis and systematic review of the current literature focusing on the strategies available to decrease wound complications in this population. (2) Methods: We reviewed the data available from the PubMed and the Science Direct databases concerning wound complications after caesarean sections in obese women. The following key words were used: "caesarean section", "cesarean section", "wound complication", "wound morbidity", and "wound infection". A total of 540 papers were retrieved, 40 of which were selected for the final systematic review and whereas 21 articles provided data for meta-analysis. (3) Results: The conducted meta-analyses revealed that the use of prophylactic drainage does not increase the risk of wound complications in obese women after a caesarean sections (pooled OR = 1.32; 95% CI 0.64-2.70, = 0.45) and that vertical skin incisions increase wound complications (pooled OR = 2.48; 95% CI 1.85-3.32, < 0.01) in obese women, including extremely obese women. (4) Conclusions: Subcutaneous drainage does not reduce the risk of a wound complications, wound infections, and fever in obese women after caesarean sections. Negative prophylactic pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may reduce the risk of surgical site infections. The evidence of using a prophylactic dose of an antibiotic before the caesarean section is still lacking.
PubMed: 33578671
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10040675 -
Sleep & Breathing = Schlaf & Atmung Jun 2023Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a common, significantly underdiagnosed sleep-related breathing disorder, characterised by upper airway collapse and resultant... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a common, significantly underdiagnosed sleep-related breathing disorder, characterised by upper airway collapse and resultant intermittent hypoxia. Oxygen plays an important role in collagen synthesis and as a result in wound healing. An association between OSA and wound healing has not been clearly delineated. A systematic review was performed to understand this association.
METHODS
Randomised controlled trials, cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies evaluating the relationship between OSA or OSA-related symptoms and wound healing in adult populations were searched in the systematic review using electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 11 cohort studies and 1 case-control study with a total of 58,198,463 subjects were included. Most studies suggest that patients diagnosed with OSA or who are at high risk of having OSA are more likely to suffer from wound complications. Patients with OSA have been found to be at higher risk for post-operative wound infection and wound dehiscence. Contradictory results were obtained on time to heal, with one study concluding that individuals with OSA were more likely to heal earlier when compared to patients without OSA. Quality of evidence, however, was deemed very low due to high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review did identify an association between OSA and wound healing. However, due to the very low-quality evidence, further research is warranted to better characterise this association and investigate whether or not treating OSA can indeed affect wound healing.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Case-Control Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Sleep; Wound Healing
PubMed: 35900617
DOI: 10.1007/s11325-022-02660-9 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Feb 2023Postoperative complications after a colonic and rectal surgery are of significant concern to the surgical community. Although there are different techniques to perform... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Postoperative complications after a colonic and rectal surgery are of significant concern to the surgical community. Although there are different techniques to perform anastomosis (i.e., handsewn, stapled, or compression), there is still no consensus on which technique provides the least number of postoperative problems. The objective of this study is to compare the different anastomotic techniques regarding the occurrence or duration of postoperative outcomes such as anastomotic dehiscence, mortality, reoperation, bleeding and stricture (as primary outcomes), and wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, duration of surgery, and hospital stay (as secondary outcomes).
METHODS
Clinical trials published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021, reporting anastomotic complications with any of the anastomotic technique were identified using the MEDLINE database. Only articles that clearly defined the anastomotic technique used, and report at least two of the outcomes defined were included.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 16 studies whose differences were related to the need of reoperation (p < 0.01) and the duration of surgery (p = 0.02), while for the anastomotic dehiscence, mortality, bleeding, stricture, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and hospital stay, no significant differences were found. Compression anastomosis reported the lowest reoperation rate (3.64%) and the handsewn anastomosis the highest (9.49%). Despite this, more time to perform the surgery was required in compression anastomosis (183.47 min), with the handsewn being the fastest technique (139.92 min).
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence found was not sufficient to demonstrate which technique is most suitable to perform colonic and rectal anastomosis, since the postoperative complications were similar between the handsewn, stapled, or compression techniques.
Topics: Humans; Surgical Stapling; Suture Techniques; Constriction, Pathologic; Abscess; Anastomosis, Surgical; Postoperative Complications; Abdominal Abscess; Intraabdominal Infections
PubMed: 36814011
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-023-04328-6 -
The British Journal of Surgery Apr 2016Postoperative wound complications are common following surgical procedures. Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is well recognized for the management of open wounds... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative wound complications are common following surgical procedures. Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is well recognized for the management of open wounds and has been applied recently to closed surgical incisions. The evidence base to support this intervention is limited. The aim of this study was to assess whether NPWT reduces postoperative wound complications when applied to closed surgical incisions.
METHODS
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of NPWT compared with standard postoperative dressings on closed surgical incisions.
RESULTS
Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 1311 incisions in 1089 patients. NPWT was associated with a significant reduction in wound infection (relative risk (RR) 0·54, 95 per cent c.i. 0·33 to 0·89) and seroma formation (RR 0·48, 0·27 to 0·84) compared with standard care. The reduction in wound dehiscence was not significant. The numbers needed to treat were three (seroma), 17 (dehiscence) and 25 (infection). Methodological heterogeneity across studies led to downgrading of the quality of evidence to moderate for infection and seroma, and low for dehiscence.
CONCLUSION
Compared with standard postoperative dressings, NPWT significantly reduced the rate of wound infection and seroma when applied to closed surgical wounds. Heterogeneity between the included studies means that no general recommendations can be made yet.
Topics: Humans; Models, Statistical; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Postoperative Complications; Seroma; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26994715
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10084 -
BJS Open Jul 2023Incisional hernia is a common short- and long-term complication of laparotomy and can lead to significant morbidity. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Incisional hernia is a common short- and long-term complication of laparotomy and can lead to significant morbidity. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an up-to-date overview of the laparotomy closure method in elective and emergency settings with the prophylactic mesh augmentation technique.
METHODS
The Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were screened without time restrictions up to 21 June 2022 using the keywords 'laparotomy closure', 'mesh', 'mesh positioning', and 'prophylactic mesh', and including medical subject headings terms. Only RCTs reporting the incidence of incisional hernia and other wound complications after elective or emergency midline laparotomy, where patients were treated with prophylactic mesh augmentation or without mesh positioning, were included. The primary endpoint was to explore the risk of incisional hernia at different follow-up time points. The secondary endpoint was the risk of wound complications. The risk of bias for individual studies was assessed according to the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized trials.
RESULTS
Eighteen RCTs, including 2659 patients, were retrieved. A reduction in the risk of incisional hernia at every time point was highlighted in the prophylactic mesh augmentation group (1 year, risk ratio 0.31, P = 0.0011; 2 years, risk ratio 0.44, P < 0.0001; 3 years, risk ratio 0.38, P = 0.0026; 4 years, risk ratio 0.38, P = 0.0257). An increased risk of wound complications was highlighted for patients undergoing mesh augmentation, although this was not significant.
CONCLUSIONS
Midline laparotomy closure with prophylactic mesh augmentation can be considered safe and effective in reducing the incidence of incisional hernia. Further trials are needed to identify the ideal type of mesh and technique for mesh positioning, but surgeons should consider prophylactic mesh augmentation to decrease incisional hernia rate, especially in high-risk patients for fascial dehiscence and even in emergency settings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID
CRD42022336242 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/record_email.php).
Topics: Humans; Incisional Hernia; Laparotomy; Surgical Mesh; Incidence; Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques
PubMed: 37504969
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad060 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication, that can reduce patient satisfaction and may lead to serious consequences, such as wound dehiscence....
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication, that can reduce patient satisfaction and may lead to serious consequences, such as wound dehiscence. Many strategies have been proposed to prevent PONV; however, it remains common, especially in high-risk surgeries such as gynecological surgery. In recent years, opioid-free anesthesia has been widely studied because it minimizes adverse reactions of opioids, such as nausea, vomiting, and itching; however, conclusions have been inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the effects of opioid-free anesthesia on PONV in patients undergoing gynecological surgery. A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, from inception to 28 August 2023, was performed. Keywords and other free terms were used with Boolean operators (OR and, AND) to combine searches. This review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Six studies involving 514 patients who underwent gynecological surgery were included. The forest plot revealed that the incidence of PONV (risk ratio = 0.52; < 0.00001) and consumption of postoperative antiemetics use (risk ratio = 0.64; = 0.03) were significantly lower in the opioid-free anesthesia group. In addition, opioid-free anesthesia improved the quality of recovery (mean difference = 4.69; < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores (mean difference = 0.05; = 0.85), analgesic use (risk ratio = 1.09; = 0.65), and the time of extubation (mean difference = -0.89; = 0.09) between the opioid-free anesthesia and control groups. OFA reduces PONV and the use of antiemetic drugs. In addition, it improves the quality of postoperative recovery. However, OFA can not reduce the postoperative pain scores, analgesic use and the time of extubation. Due to the strength of the evidence, we cannot support OFA as an ideal anesthesia method in gynecological surgery, and the implementation of anesthesia strategies should be case-by-case. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=462044], identifier [CRD42023462044].
PubMed: 38239201
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1330250