用于手术切口缝合的可吸收缝线与不可吸收缝线的系统评价。
Systematic review of absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions.
作者信息
Sajid Muhammad S, McFall Malcolm R, Whitehouse Pauline A, Sains Parv S
机构信息
Muhammad S Sajid, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust, Washington Suite, North Wing, Worthing Hospital, BN11 2DH West Sussex, United Kingdom.
出版信息
World J Gastrointest Surg. 2014 Dec 27;6(12):241-7. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v6.i12.241.
AIM
To report a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the role of absorbable suture (AS) against non-AS (NAS) used for the closure of surgical incisions.
METHODS
RCTs investigating the use of AS vs NAS for the closure of surgical incisions were statistically analysed based upon the principles of meta-analysis and the summated outcomes were represented as OR.
RESULTS
The systematic search of medical literature yielded 10 RCTs on 1354 patients. Prevalence of wound infection (OR = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.56, 1.69; Z = 0.11; P = 0.92) and operative morbidity (P = 0.45) was comparable in both groups. Nonetheless, the use of AS lead to lower risk of wound break-down (OR = 0.12; 95%CI: 0.04, 0.39; Z = 3.52; P < 0.0004).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis of 10 RCTs demonstrates that the use of AS is similar to NAS for skin closure for surgical site infection and other operative morbidities. AS do not increase the risk of skin wound dehiscence, rather lead to a reduced risk of wound dehiscence compared to NAS.
目的
报告一项系统评价，该评价对已发表的随机对照试验（RCT）进行研究，以探讨可吸收缝线（AS）与非可吸收缝线（NAS）在手术切口缝合中所起的作用。
方法
根据荟萃分析原则，对研究使用AS与NAS进行手术切口缝合的RCT进行统计分析，汇总结果以比值比（OR）表示。
结果
对医学文献进行系统检索，获得了10项涉及1354例患者的RCT。两组的伤口感染发生率（OR = 0.97；95%可信区间：0.56，1.69；Z = 0.11；P = 0.92）和手术发病率（P = 0.45）相当。尽管如此，使用AS导致伤口裂开的风险较低（OR = 0.12；95%可信区间：0.04，0.39；Z = 3.52；P < 0.0004）。
结论
这项对10项RCT的荟萃分析表明，在手术部位感染和其他手术发病率方面，使用AS进行皮肤缝合与使用NAS相似。与NAS相比，AS不会增加皮肤伤口裂开的风险，反而会降低伤口裂开的风险。
Zotero 插件