McCallum Iain J D, King Peter M, Bruce Julie
Department of General Surgery, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.
BMJ. 2008 Apr 19;336(7649):868-71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39517.808160.BE. Epub 2008 Apr 7.
To determine the relative effects of open healing compared with primary closure for pilonidal sinus and optimal closure method (midline v off-midline).
Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.
Cochrane register of controlled trials, Cochrane Wounds Group specialised trials register, Medline (1950-2007), Embase, and CINAHL bibliographic databases, without language restrictions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
确定开放性愈合与一期缝合治疗藏毛窦的相对效果以及最佳缝合方法(中线缝合与非中线缝合)。
随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Cochrane对照试验注册库、Cochrane伤口组专业试验注册库、Medline(1950 - 2007年)、Embase和CINAHL书目数据库,无语言限制。
主要结局为愈合时间(天)、手术部位感染和复发率。次要结局为恢复工作时间、其他并发症和发病率、成本、住院时间和伤口愈合率。
评估14岁及以上患者藏毛窦手术治疗的随机对照试验。由两名评价者独立提取数据并评估质量。荟萃分析采用固定效应模型和随机效应模型,二分数据报告为相对风险或Peto比值比,连续数据以均值差表示;均给出95%置信区间。
纳入18项试验(n = 1573)。12项试验比较了开放性愈合与一期缝合。一期缝合后愈合时间更快,尽管数据不适合汇总。手术部位感染率无差异;开放性愈合后复发可能性较小(相对风险0.42,0.26至0.66)。14例患者需要通过开放性愈合使其伤口愈合以预防1例复发。6项试验比较了手术缝合方法(中线缝合与非中线缝合)。中线缝合后伤口愈合时间比非中线缝合长(均值差5.4天,95%置信区间2.3至8.5),感染率更高(相对风险4.70,95%置信区间1.93至11.45),复发风险更高(Peto比值比4.95,95%置信区间2.18至11.24)。9例患者需要接受非中线手术以预防1例手术部位感染,11例患者需要接受该手术以预防1例复发。
一期缝合后伤口愈合比开放性愈合更快,但以增加复发风险为代价。与中线缝合相比,非中线缝合的益处明显。当缝合是期望的手术选择时,非中线缝合应成为藏毛窦的标准治疗方法。