{"title":"可吸收与不可吸收缝合线用于伤口闭合。系统评审的系统评审","authors":"Sharaf Sheik-Ali , Wilfried Guets","doi":"10.1016/j.wndm.2018.09.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To provide an overview of evidence on Absorbable and non-absorbable sutures (AS & NAS) for the closure of surgical incisions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>Medline, Embase and Cochrane library were searched for systematic reviews<span> including randomised control trials (RCTs) on AS and NAS. Those that matched the inclusion criterion were analysed for data on surgical site infections, </span></span>post operative complications<span> and risk of wound dehiscence.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The systematic review of reviews yielded data on 5781 patients in 25 RCTs. There was no significant difference (p < 0.05) noted in surgical site infections, post operative complications or risk of wound dehiscence post use of NAS or AS sutures.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study demonstrates that absorbable sutures are not superior to non absorbable sutures in the three areas examined: surgical site infections, post operative complications and risk of wound dehiscence. However, there was significant heterogeneity between included RCTs in the systematic reviews. Further RCTs are needed to evaluate the differences between absorbable and non absorbable sutures that are reflected in size of wounds and location.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38278,"journal":{"name":"Wound Medicine","volume":"23 ","pages":"Pages 35-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.wndm.2018.09.004","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Absorbable vs non absorbable sutures for wound closure. Systematic review of systematic reviews\",\"authors\":\"Sharaf Sheik-Ali , Wilfried Guets\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.wndm.2018.09.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To provide an overview of evidence on Absorbable and non-absorbable sutures (AS & NAS) for the closure of surgical incisions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>Medline, Embase and Cochrane library were searched for systematic reviews<span> including randomised control trials (RCTs) on AS and NAS. Those that matched the inclusion criterion were analysed for data on surgical site infections, </span></span>post operative complications<span> and risk of wound dehiscence.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The systematic review of reviews yielded data on 5781 patients in 25 RCTs. There was no significant difference (p < 0.05) noted in surgical site infections, post operative complications or risk of wound dehiscence post use of NAS or AS sutures.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study demonstrates that absorbable sutures are not superior to non absorbable sutures in the three areas examined: surgical site infections, post operative complications and risk of wound dehiscence. However, there was significant heterogeneity between included RCTs in the systematic reviews. Further RCTs are needed to evaluate the differences between absorbable and non absorbable sutures that are reflected in size of wounds and location.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38278,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wound Medicine\",\"volume\":\"23 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 35-37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.wndm.2018.09.004\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wound Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213909518300478\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wound Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213909518300478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Absorbable vs non absorbable sutures for wound closure. Systematic review of systematic reviews
Objective
To provide an overview of evidence on Absorbable and non-absorbable sutures (AS & NAS) for the closure of surgical incisions.
Methods
Medline, Embase and Cochrane library were searched for systematic reviews including randomised control trials (RCTs) on AS and NAS. Those that matched the inclusion criterion were analysed for data on surgical site infections, post operative complications and risk of wound dehiscence.
Results
The systematic review of reviews yielded data on 5781 patients in 25 RCTs. There was no significant difference (p < 0.05) noted in surgical site infections, post operative complications or risk of wound dehiscence post use of NAS or AS sutures.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that absorbable sutures are not superior to non absorbable sutures in the three areas examined: surgical site infections, post operative complications and risk of wound dehiscence. However, there was significant heterogeneity between included RCTs in the systematic reviews. Further RCTs are needed to evaluate the differences between absorbable and non absorbable sutures that are reflected in size of wounds and location.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
