Suppr超能文献

围手术期、局部及全身升温与手术部位感染:一项系统评价与荟萃分析

Perioperative, local and systemic warming in surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Ousey K, Edward K-L, Lui S, Stephenson J, Walker K, Duff J, Leaper D

机构信息

Professor, School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK; Institute of Skin Integrity and Infection Prevention, University of Huddersfield, UK.

Professor of Nursing and Practice-based Research, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.

出版信息

J Wound Care. 2017 Nov 2;26(11):614-624. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2017.26.11.614.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common cause of postoperative morbidity. Perioperative hypothermia may contribute to surgical complications including increased risk of SSI. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the effectiveness of active and passive perioperative warming interventions to prevent SSI was compared with standard (non-warming) care.

METHOD

Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL Plus; The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, with no restrictions on language, publication date or study setting for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs. Adult patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery under general anaesthesia, receiving any active or passive warming intervention perioperatively were included. Selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed by two review authors, independently. Outcomes studied were SSI (primary outcome), inpatient mortality, hospital length of stay and pain (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

We identified four studies, including 769 patients. The risk ratio (RR) for SSI in warming groups was 0.36 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23, 0.56; p<0. 001]. Length of hospitalisation was 1.13 days less in warming groups [95% CI: -3.07, 5.33; p=0.600]. The RR for mortality in the warming groups was 0.77 [95% CI: 0.17, 3.43; p=0.730]. A meta-analysis for pain outcome could not be conducted.

CONCLUSION

This review provides evidence in favour of active warming to prevent SSI, but insufficient evidence of active warming to reduce length of hospital stay and mortality. Benefits of passive warming remain unclear and warrant further research.

摘要

目的

手术部位感染(SSI)是术后发病的常见原因。围手术期体温过低可能导致手术并发症,包括SSI风险增加。在这项系统评价和荟萃分析中,将围手术期主动和被动保暖干预预防SSI的有效性与标准(非保暖)护理进行了比较。

方法

检索了Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid EMBASE、EBSCO CINAHL Plus、Cochrane伤口专业注册库和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库,对随机对照试验(RCT)和整群RCT的语言、出版日期或研究背景没有限制。纳入接受全身麻醉下择期或急诊手术、围手术期接受任何主动或被动保暖干预的成年患者。由两位综述作者独立进行筛选、偏倚风险评估和数据提取。研究的结局包括SSI(主要结局)、住院死亡率、住院时间和疼痛(次要结局)。

结果

我们纳入了四项研究,共769例患者。保暖组SSI的风险比(RR)为0.36[95%置信区间(CI):0.23,0.56;p<0.001]。保暖组的住院时间缩短1.13天[95%CI:-3.07,5.33;p=0.600]。保暖组死亡率的RR为0.77[95%CI:0.17,3.43;p=0.730]。无法对疼痛结局进行荟萃分析。

结论

本综述提供了支持主动保暖预防SSI的证据,但主动保暖减少住院时间和死亡率的证据不足。被动保暖的益处仍不明确,值得进一步研究。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验