A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of delayed primary wound closure in contaminated abdominal wounds

被引:0
作者
Boonying Siribumrungwong
Pinit Noorit
Chumpon Wilasrusmee
Ammarin Thakkinstian
机构
[1] Ramathibodi Hospital,Section for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine
[2] Mahidol University,Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine
[3] Thammasat University Hospital,Department of Surgery
[4] Thammasat University (Rangsit Campus),Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine
[5] Chonburi Hospital,undefined
[6] Ramathibodi Hospital,undefined
[7] Mahidol University,undefined
来源
World Journal of Emergency Surgery | / 9卷
关键词
Delayed primary closure; Wound closure; Wound infection; Surgical site infection; Appendicitis; Meta-analysis;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare surgical site infection (SSI) between delayed primary (DPC) and primary wound closure (PC) in complicated appendicitis and other contaminated abdominal wounds. Medline and Scopus were searched from their beginning to November 2013 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SSI and length of stay between DPC and PC. Studies’ selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done by two independent authors. The risk ratio and unstandardised mean difference were pooled for SSI and length of stay, respectively. Among 8 eligible studies, 5 studies were done in complicated appendicitis, 2 with mixed complicated appendicitis and other types of abdominal operation and 1 with ileostomy closure. Most studies (75%) had high risk of bias in sequence generation and allocation concealment. Among 6 RCTs of complicated appendicitis underwent open appendectomy, the SSI between PC and DPC were not significantly different with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.46, 1.73). DPC had a significantly 1.6 days (95% CI: 1.41, 1.79) longer length of stay than PC. Our evidence suggested there might be no advantage of DPC over PC in reducing SSI in complicated appendicitis. However, this was based on a small number of studies with low quality. A large scale RCT is further required.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 139 条
[111]  
Giannotti G(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
[112]  
Ong AW(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
[113]  
Esteban Varela J(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
[114]  
Shatz DV(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
[115]  
McKenney MG(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
[116]  
Sleeman D(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
[117]  
Ginzburg E(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
[118]  
Augenstein JS(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
[119]  
Byers PM(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
[120]  
Sands LR(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined