Conectar
Burn injuries result in localised tissue damage and precipitate systemic responses; routine clinical treatments, which typically include metabolic nutritional support and anti-infection therapies, do not yield optimal outcomes. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of ulinastatin on wound infection and healing in patients with burns to provide reliable evidence-based recommendations for burn treatment. An electronic search of the Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, supplemented by manual searches, was conducted from database inception to October 2023 to collect randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of ulinastatin for the treatment of burns. Two researchers screened all retrieved articles according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria; the included studies were evaluated for quality, and the relevant data were extracted. Stata 17.0 software was employed for data analysis. Overall, 8 RCTs with 803 patients were included, with 404 and 399 in the ulinastatin and conventional treatment groups, respectively. The analysis revealed that wound infections (odds ratio [OR] = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02–0.35, p = 0.001) and complications (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.10–0.42, p < 0.001) were significantly lower, and wound healing time (standardised mean differences [SMD] = −1.31, 95% CI: −2.05 to −0.57, p = 0.001) was significantly shorter, in the ulinastatin groups than in the control group. This meta-analysis revealed that ulinastatin can effectively reduce the incidence of wound infections and complications and significantly shorten the duration of wound healing in patients with burns, thereby promoting early recovery in these patients.
The meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare the effect of closed-incision negative pressure wound (NPW) treatment in vascular surgery. Using dichotomous or contentious random or fixed effect models, the outcomes of this meta-analysis were examined, and the odds Ratio (OR) and the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. Ten examinations from 2017 to 2022 were enrolled for the present meta-analysis, including 2082 personals with vascular surgery. Closed-incision NPW treatment had significantly lower infection rates (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30–0.51, p < 0.001), grade I infection rates (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20–0.52, p < 0.001), grade II infection rates (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.21–0.71, p = 0.002), and grade III infection rates (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13–0.73, p = 0.007), and surgical re-intervention (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25–0.97, p = 0.04) compared to control in personal with vascular surgery. However, no significant differences were found between closed-incision NPW treatment and control in the 30-day mortality (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29–1.00, p = 0.05), antibiotic treatment (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.24–1.19, p = 0.12), and length of hospital stay (MD, −0.02; 95% CI, −0.24-0.19, p = 0.83) in personnel with vascular surgery. The examined data revealed that closed-incision NPW treatment had significantly lower infection rates, grade I infection rates, grade II infection rates, and grade III infection rates, surgical re-intervention, however, there were no significant differences in 30-day mortality, antibiotic treatment, or length of hospital stay compared to control group with vascular surgery. Yet, attention should be paid to its values since some comparisons had a low number of selected studies.
FreshRSS 