Conectar
This is a study assessing the effectiveness of staples versus sutures for closing incisions after total hip arthroplasty (THA). We searched all relevant literature up to July 2023, and after reading through the full text, we finally included 5 for analysis, with a total of 1084 cases who underwent total hip arthroplasty, of which 548 were closed with staples and 536 with sutures, and evaluated the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, using the ratio of ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to compare the effectiveness of staples and sutures in wound closure in total hip arthroplasty. The study found that the suture group was superior to the staple group in terms of superficial infection and incisional exudate; superficial infection (OR = 3.04, 95% CI: 1.14–8.07; p = 0.03, I 2 = 0%), incisional exudate (OR = 3.22, 95% CI: 1.84–5.65; p < 0.001, I 2 = 0%) and suture staples were superior to suture group in terms of closure time (WMD = −231.8 95% CI: −429.55 to −34.05; p = 0.02, I 2 = 100%). There was no remarkable distinction between the two groups in terms of deep infection, postoperative hospital, HWES score and patient's satisfaction, deep infection (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.35–4.35; p = 0.74, I 2 = 0%), postoperative hospital (WMD = 2.50 95% CI: −2.25 to 7.25; p = 0.30, I 2 = 100%), HWES score (WMD = −0.38 95% CI: −0.52 to −0.24; p < 0.01, I 2 = 72%) and patient's satisfaction (WMD = −0.23 95% CI: −1.43 to 0.96; p = 0.70, I 2 = 94%); however, due to the small sample sizes of several studies included in this study, caution must be exercised when addressing their value.
To date, we have reviewed the synthesis literature critically through four databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Eight relevant studies were examined after compliance with the criteria for inclusion and exclusion, as well as documentation quality evaluation. This report covered all randomised, controlled studies of total hip arthroplasty (THA) comparing the direct anterior approach (DAA) with the postero-lateral approach (PLA). The main result was surgical site infection rate. The secondary results were duration of the operation, length of the incision and VAS score after surgery. The results of the meta-analyses of wound infections in the present trial did not show any statistically significant difference in DAA versus PLA (between DAA and PLA) (OR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.5 to 4.04, p = 0.51). Compared with PLA, DAA had shorter surgical incision (WMD = −3.2, 95%CI: −4.00 to −2.41; p < 0.001) and longer operative times(WMD = 14. 67, 95%CI: 9.24 to 20.09; p < 0.001). Postoperative VAS scores were markedly lower in DAA compared with PLA within 6 weeks of surgery (p < 0.05), with low heterogeneities(I 2 = 0). We found that DAA did not differ significantly from PLA in terms of the risk of wound infection for THA and that the surgical incisions was shorter and less postoperative pain after surgery, even though DAA surgery takes longer.
Studies showed that integrating coating or valve into Peripherally Inserted Central (PICC) can prevent related complications. However, data regarding efficiency were controversial. Therefore, a systematic review was needed to analyse the effect of PICC materials and designs on reduction of PICC-related complications. We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, EMbase, grey literature and referent literature from inception to 5 August 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case–control study were included. Two authors extracted data independently, using a predesigned Excel form, and assessed the quality of included RCTs according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews (V5.1.0), case–control study was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were analysed using Review Manager (v5.3.0). A total of 10 RCTs and one case–control study were included. Meta-analysis results showed that PICC designs reduce the incidence of obstruction, and at the critical value of PICC-associated bloodstream infection, but may have no effects on other complications. Based on the literature reviewed, we can only say PICC new materials did not reflect significant reduction on complications, what's more, the result needs more multicentre, large RCTs to support. We suggested clinicians combine descriptive research and cost-effect analysis to select appropriate PICC materials and designs for patients.
FreshRSS 