A systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of packing in the management of perianal abscesses.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
D L Crook, Ome Padfield
{"title":"A systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of packing in the management of perianal abscesses.","authors":"D L Crook, Ome Padfield","doi":"10.1308/rcsann.2023.0108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Perianal abscesses are common presentations and reasons for emergency general surgery admissions. Management involves incision and drainage of the abscess and packing the cavity with internal wound dressings. This meta-analysis aimed to assess in adults if packing an abscess or leaving it unpacked leads to a significant difference in the outcomes of pain on wound dressing, time to healing, rate of fistulation and abscess recurrence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants aged 18 years or older that compared packing of perianal abscess cavities with no packing between 2002 and 2022 were searched for in December 2022 on OVID Medline and Embase, the CENTRAL register of trials, PubMed and Google Scholar. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted on the data extracted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three RCTs involving 490 patients were analysed for the outcomes of abscess recurrence and postoperative fistula formation; the data were not adequate to assess pain on dressing and time to healing. For unpacked versus packed, the pooled relative risk of abscess recurrence was 1.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.764, 3.29, <i>p</i>=0.219) and for fistula formation 0.686 (95% CI 0.430, 1.09, <i>p</i>=0.114). These results suggest there is no significant benefit to packing abscess cavities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Analysis of the outcomes suggests there is no significant difference with regards to rates of abscess recurrence or fistula formation between the packed and unpacked groups; however, appropriately powered RCTs are required in this area to provide more primary evidence to inform best practice and clinical management.</p>","PeriodicalId":8088,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","volume":" ","pages":"29-34"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2023.0108","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Perianal abscesses are common presentations and reasons for emergency general surgery admissions. Management involves incision and drainage of the abscess and packing the cavity with internal wound dressings. This meta-analysis aimed to assess in adults if packing an abscess or leaving it unpacked leads to a significant difference in the outcomes of pain on wound dressing, time to healing, rate of fistulation and abscess recurrence.

Methods: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants aged 18 years or older that compared packing of perianal abscess cavities with no packing between 2002 and 2022 were searched for in December 2022 on OVID Medline and Embase, the CENTRAL register of trials, PubMed and Google Scholar. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted on the data extracted.

Results: Three RCTs involving 490 patients were analysed for the outcomes of abscess recurrence and postoperative fistula formation; the data were not adequate to assess pain on dressing and time to healing. For unpacked versus packed, the pooled relative risk of abscess recurrence was 1.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.764, 3.29, p=0.219) and for fistula formation 0.686 (95% CI 0.430, 1.09, p=0.114). These results suggest there is no significant benefit to packing abscess cavities.

Conclusions: Analysis of the outcomes suggests there is no significant difference with regards to rates of abscess recurrence or fistula formation between the packed and unpacked groups; however, appropriately powered RCTs are required in this area to provide more primary evidence to inform best practice and clinical management.

对使用填料治疗肛周脓肿的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:肛周脓肿是普外科急诊的常见病和多发病。处理方法包括切开和引流脓肿,并用内伤口敷料填塞脓腔。这项荟萃分析旨在评估成人脓肿包扎或不包扎是否会导致伤口敷料疼痛、愈合时间、瘘管率和脓肿复发等结果出现显著差异:于 2022 年 12 月在 OVID Medline 和 Embase、CENTRAL 试验注册中心、PubMed 和 Google Scholar 上检索了 2002 年至 2022 年期间对肛周脓肿进行包扎与不包扎进行比较的 18 岁及以上参与者的随机对照试验 (RCT)。使用科克伦偏倚风险工具对偏倚风险进行了评估。对提取的数据进行随机效应荟萃分析:对涉及490名患者的三项RCT进行了分析,结果包括脓肿复发和术后瘘管形成;数据不足以评估敷料疼痛和愈合时间。未包扎与包扎相比,脓肿复发的汇总相对风险为 1.57(95% 置信区间 (CI):0.764, 3.29, p=0.219),瘘管形成的汇总相对风险为 0.686(95% 置信区间 (CI):0.430, 1.09, p=0.114)。这些结果表明,对脓腔进行填塞并无明显益处:对结果的分析表明,填塞组和未填塞组在脓肿复发率或瘘管形成率方面没有明显差异;但是,在这一领域还需要进行适当功率的 RCT 研究,以提供更多的原始证据,为最佳实践和临床管理提供依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
316
期刊介绍: The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England is the official scholarly research journal of the Royal College of Surgeons and is published eight times a year in January, February, March, April, May, July, September and November. The main aim of the journal is to publish high-quality, peer-reviewed papers that relate to all branches of surgery. The Annals also includes letters and comments, a regular technical section, controversial topics, CORESS feedback and book reviews. The editorial board is composed of experts from all the surgical specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信