From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Mar;117(3):682-690. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820ad61e.
To estimate whether staples or subcuticular suture closure is associated with a higher risk of wound complications when used for transverse skin incisions after cesarean delivery.
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Trial Registries).
We searched electronic databases from 1966 to September 2010 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies comparing staples to subcuticular sutures after cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was occurrence of a wound complication (infection or separation). Secondary outcomes were components of the composite outcome, operating time, postoperative pain, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the χ test for heterogeneity, and I test. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using a fixed-effects model. We assessed publication bias using funnel plots and Egger test.
Six studies met inclusion criteria: five RCTs and one prospective cohort study. Staple closure (n=803) was associated with a twofold higher risk of wound infection or separation compared with subcuticular suture closure (n=684) (13.4% versus 6.6%, pooled OR 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-2.98). The number needed to harm associated with staple closure was 16. The increased risk persisted when analysis was limited to the RCTs (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.47-4.02). There was no evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity among studies (χ=0.74, P=.327, I=13.7%) or publication bias (Egger test, t=-0.86, P=.439). Staple closure was associated with shorter duration of surgery, whereas the two techniques appeared equivalent overall with regard to pain, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction.
Staple closure is faster to perform but associated with a higher risk of wound complications.
评估在剖宫产术后横向皮肤切口时,使用订书钉或皮下缝合与更高的伤口并发症风险相关。
通过电子数据库搜索(MEDLINE、Cochrane 和试验登记处)进行系统评价和荟萃分析。
我们搜索了从 1966 年到 2010 年 9 月的电子数据库,以比较剖宫产术后订书钉与皮下缝合的随机对照试验(RCT)和前瞻性队列研究。主要结果是发生伤口并发症(感染或分离)。次要结果是复合结果的组成部分、手术时间、术后疼痛、美容效果和患者满意度。使用 χ 检验异质性和 I 检验评估异质性。使用固定效应模型计算合并优势比(OR)。我们使用漏斗图和 Egger 检验评估发表偏倚。
六项研究符合纳入标准:五项 RCT 和一项前瞻性队列研究。与皮下缝合(n=684)相比,订书钉闭合(n=803)与伤口感染或分离的风险增加两倍相关(13.4%比 6.6%,合并 OR 2.06,95%置信区间 [CI] 1.43-2.98)。与订书钉闭合相关的需要伤害的数量为 16。当分析仅限于 RCT 时,这种风险仍然存在(OR 2.43,95% CI 1.47-4.02)。研究之间没有显著的统计学异质性(χ=0.74,P=.327,I=13.7%)或发表偏倚(Egger 检验,t=-0.86,P=.439)。订书钉闭合术的手术时间更短,而两种技术在疼痛、美容效果和患者满意度方面总体上相似。
订书钉闭合术操作更快,但与更高的伤口并发症风险相关。