Chen Kevin K, Elbuluk Ameer M, Vigdorchik Jonathan M, Long William J, Schwarzkopf Ran
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center's Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY, USA.
Arthroplast Today. 2017 Jul 3;4(1):125-129. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2017.03.002. eCollection 2018 Mar.
The use of perioperative surgical wound dressings is an important factor in the mitigation of infection following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Few studies have been published comparing wound dressings and infection rates after TJA.
MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE were searched for studies published between 2006 and 2016 reporting infection rates in patients using various wound dressings after undergoing TJA. All studies comparing Hydrofibre dressings to Standard dressings or Absorbent dressings were included in this meta-analysis. Studies looking at TJA secondary to trauma were excluded. Two individuals independently extracted data, and study results were divided based on type of treatment. The primary outcome was to compare the infection rate of Hydrofibre dressings to that of both Standard Dressings and Absorbent dressings.
Of a total of 3721 participants, 1483 were treated with Standard dressings (non-impregnated gauze), 1911 with Hydrofibre dressings, and 327 with Absorbent dressings. The risk ratio for infection comparing Standard with Hydrofibre was 4.16 (95% confidence interval, 1.71-10.16) as compared to 2.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.66-10.27) when comparing Absorbent with Hydrofibre dressings.
Our analysis suggests that Hydrofibre dressings may be significantly better than Standard and Absorbent dressings with respect to reducing infection. However, given the observed heterogeneity and small number of studies included, more comparative studies are needed to definitively recommend superiority among dressings following TJA.
Level 1.
围手术期外科伤口敷料的使用是全关节置换术(TJA)后减轻感染的一个重要因素。很少有研究发表比较TJA后伤口敷料与感染率的关系。
检索MEDLINE、PubMed和EMBASE数据库,查找2006年至2016年间发表的关于TJA后使用各种伤口敷料的患者感染率的研究。所有比较水凝胶敷料与标准敷料或吸收性敷料的研究均纳入本荟萃分析。排除创伤后TJA的研究。两名研究人员独立提取数据,并根据治疗类型对研究结果进行分类。主要结果是比较水凝胶敷料与标准敷料和吸收性敷料的感染率。
在总共3721名参与者中,1483名接受标准敷料(非浸渍纱布)治疗,1911名接受水凝胶敷料治疗,327名接受吸收性敷料治疗。标准敷料与水凝胶敷料相比的感染风险比为4.16(95%置信区间,1.71 - 10.16),而吸收性敷料与水凝胶敷料相比为2.60(95%置信区间,0.66 - 10.27)。
我们的分析表明,在减少感染方面,水凝胶敷料可能明显优于标准敷料和吸收性敷料。然而,鉴于观察到的异质性和纳入研究数量较少,需要更多的比较研究来明确推荐TJA后哪种敷料具有优越性。
1级。