比较两种不同闭合切口负压系统在乳房手术中的效果及对护理成本的影响的 Meta 分析。

Eplasty Pub Date : 2024-07-17 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01
Devinder P Singh, Allen Gabriel, Ronald Silverman, Christine Bongards, Leah Griffin
{"title":"比较两种不同闭合切口负压系统在乳房手术中的效果及对护理成本的影响的 Meta 分析。","authors":"Devinder P Singh, Allen Gabriel, Ronald Silverman, Christine Bongards, Leah Griffin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical site complication (SSC) rates in breast surgery have been reported between 2.25% and 53%. Use of incision management may help reduce the risk of SSCs. The potential of 2 closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) systems to mitigate surgical site complications (SSC) and surgical site infections (SSI) in breast surgery were assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review for breast surgery studies was conducted comparing ciNPT use against standard of care (SOC). SSC, SSI, and dehiscence rates were examined. SSCs were defined as all surgical site complications including SSI, dehiscence, seroma, hematoma, and necrosis. Risk ratios and random effects models were used to assess the effect of ciNPT with multilayer absorbent dressing (ciNPT-MLA) and ciNPT with foam dressing (ciNPT-F) compared with SOC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight articles were included in the meta-analysis. No significant differences in SSC rates (<i>P</i> = .307) or SSI rates (<i>P</i> = .453) between ciNPT-MLA and SOC were observed. ciNPT-MLA use was associated with a reduction in dehiscence compared with SOC (RR = 0.499, 95% CI = 0.303, 0.822; <i>P</i> = .006). A significant reduction in SSC rates (RR = 0.498, 95% CI = 0.271, 0.917; <i>P</i> = .025) was observed with ciNPT-F use. Similarly, dehiscence rate reduction was associated with ciNPT-F use (RR = 0.349, 95% CI= 0.168, 0.725; <i>P</i> = .005). A trend towards reduction of SSI rates with ciNPT-F use compared with SOC was also noted (<i>P</i> = .053).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with SOC, ciNPT-MLA significantly reduced rates of dehiscence, while ciNPT-F use resulted in significantly reduced SSC and dehiscence rates with a trend toward reducing SSI.</p>","PeriodicalId":93993,"journal":{"name":"Eplasty","volume":"24 ","pages":"e40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11367156/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes of Two Different Closed Incision Negative Pressure Systems in Breast Surgery and Implications to Cost of Care.\",\"authors\":\"Devinder P Singh, Allen Gabriel, Ronald Silverman, Christine Bongards, Leah Griffin\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical site complication (SSC) rates in breast surgery have been reported between 2.25% and 53%. Use of incision management may help reduce the risk of SSCs. The potential of 2 closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) systems to mitigate surgical site complications (SSC) and surgical site infections (SSI) in breast surgery were assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review for breast surgery studies was conducted comparing ciNPT use against standard of care (SOC). SSC, SSI, and dehiscence rates were examined. SSCs were defined as all surgical site complications including SSI, dehiscence, seroma, hematoma, and necrosis. Risk ratios and random effects models were used to assess the effect of ciNPT with multilayer absorbent dressing (ciNPT-MLA) and ciNPT with foam dressing (ciNPT-F) compared with SOC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight articles were included in the meta-analysis. No significant differences in SSC rates (<i>P</i> = .307) or SSI rates (<i>P</i> = .453) between ciNPT-MLA and SOC were observed. ciNPT-MLA use was associated with a reduction in dehiscence compared with SOC (RR = 0.499, 95% CI = 0.303, 0.822; <i>P</i> = .006). A significant reduction in SSC rates (RR = 0.498, 95% CI = 0.271, 0.917; <i>P</i> = .025) was observed with ciNPT-F use. Similarly, dehiscence rate reduction was associated with ciNPT-F use (RR = 0.349, 95% CI= 0.168, 0.725; <i>P</i> = .005). A trend towards reduction of SSI rates with ciNPT-F use compared with SOC was also noted (<i>P</i> = .053).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with SOC, ciNPT-MLA significantly reduced rates of dehiscence, while ciNPT-F use resulted in significantly reduced SSC and dehiscence rates with a trend toward reducing SSI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eplasty\",\"volume\":\"24 \",\"pages\":\"e40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11367156/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eplasty\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eplasty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:据报道,乳腺手术的手术部位并发症(SSC)发生率在 2.25% 到 53% 之间。切口管理有助于降低 SSC 的风险。本研究评估了两种闭合切口负压疗法(ciNPT)系统在减轻乳腺手术中手术部位并发症(SSC)和手术部位感染(SSI)方面的潜力:方法:对乳腺手术研究进行了系统性文献回顾,比较了 ciNPT 与标准护理(SOC)的使用情况。对 SSC、SSI 和开裂率进行了研究。SSC定义为所有手术部位并发症,包括SSI、开裂、血清肿、血肿和坏死。使用风险比和随机效应模型评估了与 SOC 相比,使用多层吸收敷料的 ciNPT(ciNPT-MLA)和使用泡沫敷料的 ciNPT(ciNPT-F)的效果:荟萃分析纳入了 8 篇文章。与 SOC 相比,使用 ciNPT-MLA 可降低开裂率(RR = 0.499,95% CI = 0.303,0.822;P = 0.006)。使用 ciNPT-F 可明显降低 SSC 率(RR = 0.498,95% CI = 0.271,0.917;P = .025)。同样,开裂率的降低也与使用 ciNPT-F 有关(RR = 0.349,95% CI= 0.168,0.725;P = .005)。与 SOC 相比,使用 ciNPT-F 有降低 SSI 感染率的趋势(P = .053):结论:与 SOC 相比,ciNPT-MLA 能显著降低开裂率,而 ciNPT-F 能显著降低 SSC 和开裂率,并有降低 SSI 的趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes of Two Different Closed Incision Negative Pressure Systems in Breast Surgery and Implications to Cost of Care.

Background: Surgical site complication (SSC) rates in breast surgery have been reported between 2.25% and 53%. Use of incision management may help reduce the risk of SSCs. The potential of 2 closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) systems to mitigate surgical site complications (SSC) and surgical site infections (SSI) in breast surgery were assessed.

Methods: A systematic literature review for breast surgery studies was conducted comparing ciNPT use against standard of care (SOC). SSC, SSI, and dehiscence rates were examined. SSCs were defined as all surgical site complications including SSI, dehiscence, seroma, hematoma, and necrosis. Risk ratios and random effects models were used to assess the effect of ciNPT with multilayer absorbent dressing (ciNPT-MLA) and ciNPT with foam dressing (ciNPT-F) compared with SOC.

Results: Eight articles were included in the meta-analysis. No significant differences in SSC rates (P = .307) or SSI rates (P = .453) between ciNPT-MLA and SOC were observed. ciNPT-MLA use was associated with a reduction in dehiscence compared with SOC (RR = 0.499, 95% CI = 0.303, 0.822; P = .006). A significant reduction in SSC rates (RR = 0.498, 95% CI = 0.271, 0.917; P = .025) was observed with ciNPT-F use. Similarly, dehiscence rate reduction was associated with ciNPT-F use (RR = 0.349, 95% CI= 0.168, 0.725; P = .005). A trend towards reduction of SSI rates with ciNPT-F use compared with SOC was also noted (P = .053).

Conclusions: Compared with SOC, ciNPT-MLA significantly reduced rates of dehiscence, while ciNPT-F use resulted in significantly reduced SSC and dehiscence rates with a trend toward reducing SSI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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