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.
To providing evidence-based recommendations for surgery in patients with femoral neck fractures, a meta-analysis was conducted to comprehensively evaluate the effects of cemented and uncemented prostheses on postoperative surgical site wound infection and pain in these patients. Relevant studies on the use of cemented prostheses in femoral neck fractures were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Ovid, CNKI, and Wanfang databases from the time of their establishment until March 2023. Two authors independently screened and extracted data from the included and excluded literature according to predetermined criteria. Review Manager 5.4 software was used to perform meta-analyses on the collected data. A total of 27 articles comprising 34 210 patients (24 646 cases in the cemented group and 9564 cases in the uncemented group) were included in the final analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with the uncemented group, cemented prostheses significantly reduced the incidence of surgical site wound infections (odds ratio [OR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64–0.88, p < 0.001) and relieved surgical site wound pain (standardised mean difference: −0.76, 95% CI: −1.12–0.40, p < 0.001), but did not reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers after surgery (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.20–1.26, p = 0.140). Therefore, existing evidence suggests that the use of cemented prostheses in femoral neck fracture surgery can significantly reduce the incidence of surgical site wound infections and relieve surgical site wound pain, which is worthy of clinical recommendation.
FreshRSS 