Dataset Information

Healing by primary closure versus open healing after surgery for pilonidal sinus: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the relative effects of open healing compared with primary closure for pilonidal sinus and optimal closure method (midline v off-midline).

Design

Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources

Cochrane register of controlled trials, Cochrane Wounds Group specialised trials register, Medline (1950-2007), Embase, and CINAHL bibliographic databases, without language restrictions.

Data extraction

Primary outcomes were time (days) to healing, surgical site infection, and recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were time to return to work, other complications and morbidity, cost, length of hospital stay, and wound healing rate.

Study selection

Randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical treatment of pilonidal sinus in patients aged 14 years or more. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and assessed for quality. Meta-analyses used fixed and random effects models, dichotomous data were reported as relative risks or Peto odds ratios and continuous data are given as mean differences; all with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

18 trials (n=1573) were included. 12 trials compared open healing with primary closure. Time to healing was quicker after primary closure although data were unsuitable for aggregation. Rates of surgical site infection did not differ; recurrence was less likely to occur after open healing (relative risk 0.42, 0.26 to 0.66). 14 patients would require their wound to heal by open healing to prevent one recurrence. Six trials compared surgical closure methods (midline v off-midline). Wounds took longer to heal after midline closure than after off-midline closure (mean difference 5.4 days, 95% confidence interval 2.3 to 8.5), rate of infection was higher (relative risk 4.70, 95% confidence interval 1.93 to 11.45), and risk of recurrence higher (Peto odds ratio 4.95, 95% confidence interval 2.18 to 11.24). Nine patients would need to be treated by an off-midline procedure to prevent one surgical site infection and 11 would need to be treated to prevent one recurrence.

Conclusions

Wounds heal more quickly after primary closure than after open healing but at the expense of increased risk of recurrence. Benefits were clearly shown with off-midline closure compared with midline closure. Off-midline closure should become standard management for pilonidal sinus when closure is the desired surgical option.

SUBMITTER: McCallum IJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2323096 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The advent of pediatric endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (PEPSiT) has dramatically changed the surgical management of pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) in children and adolescents. This study aimed to report the outcome of our new structurated protocol, including PEPSiT, laser epilation, and oxygen-enriched oil-based gel dressing, for treatment of PSD in pediatric patients and describe tips and tricks of the technique. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 127 pediatric patients, who underwent PEPSiT for PSD in our institutions over a 36-month period. All patients received laser epilation (LE) before and after surgery. Post-operative dressing was performed using silver sulfadiazine spray and in the last 18 months oxygen-enriched oil-based gel. We divided the patients in two groups according to the protocol adopted: G1 (laser + oxygen-enriched oil-based gel dressing) included 72 patients and G2 (laser + silver sulfadiazine spray dressing) included 55 patients. The two groups were compared regarding success rate, recurrence, wound infection rate, wound healing time, post-operative outcome, time to full daily activities and patient satisfaction. Results: No difference emerged between the two groups regarding the average operative time, the average post-operative pain score, the average analgesic requirement, the average hospitalization and the average time to full daily activities (p = 0.33). No intra- or post-operative complications including wound infection occurred in both groups. The patients required an average number of 7 LE sessions (range 4-10) to achieve complete hair removal. The overall success rate was significantly higher in G1 (n = 71, 98.6%) compared with G2 (n = 50, 90.9%) [p = 0.001]. The recurrence rate was also significantly lower in G1 (n = 1, 1.4%) compared with G2 (n = 5, 9%) [p = 0.001]. Furthermore, G1 reported a faster wound healing (average 21 days) compared with G2 (average 29 days) [p = 0.001] and a higher patient satisfaction score (average 4.9) compared with G2 (average 4.2) [p = 0.001]. Conclusions: Based upon our experience, PEPSiT may be considered the standard of care for surgical treatment of PSD in children and adolescents. Our new structurated protocol consisting of pre-operative LE, PEPSiT, and post-operative wound management with oxygen-enriched oil-based gel dressing and LE, allowed to achieve an excellent outcome, with a success rate > 98%.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of staples versus sutures in wound closure after orthopaedic surgery.DesignMeta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, CINAHL, AMED, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched, in addition to the grey literature, in all languages from 1950 to September 2009. Additional studies were identified from cited references. Selection criteria Two authors independently assessed papers for eligibility. Included studies were randomised and non-randomised controlled trials that compared the use of staples with suture material for wound closure after orthopaedic surgery procedures. All studies were included, and publications were not excluded because of poor methodological quality. Review methods Two authors independently reviewed studies for methodological quality and extracted data from each paper. Final data for analysis were collated through consensus. The primary outcome measure was the assessment of superficial wound infection after wound closure with staples compared with sutures. Relative risk and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled with a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with I(2) and chi(2) statistical test.ResultsSix papers, which included 683 wounds, were identified; 332 patients underwent suture closure and 351 staple closure. The risk of developing a superficial wound infection after orthopaedic procedures was over three times greater after staple closure than suture closure (relative risk 3.83, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 10.68; P=0.01). On subgroup analysis of hip surgery alone, the risk of developing a wound infection was four times greater after staple closure than suture closure (4.79, 1.24 to 18.47; P=0.02). There was no significant difference between sutures and staples in the development of inflammation, discharge, dehiscence, necrosis, and allergic reaction. The included studies had several major methodological limitations, including the recruitment of small, underpowered cohorts, poorly randomising patients, and not blinding assessors to the allocated methods of wound closure. Only one study had acceptable methodological quality.ConclusionsAfter orthopaedic surgery, there is a significantly higher risk of developing a wound infection when the wound is closed with staples rather than sutures. This risk is specifically greater in patients who undergo hip surgery. The use of staples for closing hip or knee surgery wounds after orthopaedic procedures cannot be recommended, though the evidence comes from studies with substantial methodological limitations. Though we advise orthopaedic surgeons to reconsider their use of staples for wound closure, definitive randomised trials are still needed to assess this research question.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Minimally invasive surgery in urology has grown considerably in application since its initial description in the early 1990s. Herein, we present the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing open versus robotic urological oncological surgery for various clinically relevant outcomes, as well as to assess their comparative penetrance over the past 20 years (2000-2020). METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will document the penetrance of robotic versus open surgery in the urological oncological field using a national database.Second, we will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published full-text English and non-English language articles from Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science search engines on surgical treatment of localised prostate, bladder, kidney and testis cancer published between 1st January 2000 to 10th January 2020. We will focus on the highest-volume urological oncological surgeries, namely, radical prostatectomy, radical cystectomy, partial nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Study inclusion criteria will comprise clinical trials and prospective and retrospective studies (cohort or case-control series) comparing robotic versus open surgery. Exclusion criteria will comprise meta-analyses, multiple papers with overalapping study-periods, studies analysing national databases and case series describing only one approach (robotic or open). Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed by the appropriate Cochrane risk of bias tool. Principal outcomes assessed will include perioperative, functional, oncological survival and financial outcomes of open versus robotic uro-oncological surgery. Sensitivity analyses will be performed to correlate outcomes of interest with key baseline characteristics and surrogates of surgical expertise. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis will provide rigorous, consolidated information on contemporary outcomes and trends of open versus robotic urological oncological surgery based on all the available literature. These aggregate data will help physicians better advise patients seeking surgical care for urological cancers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017064958.