Irish journal of medical science · 2024
Primary closure versus vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap closure of perineal wound following abdominoperineal resection-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Temperley Hugo C, Shokuhi Poorya, O'Sullivan Niall J, Mac Curtain Benjamin, Waters Caitlin, Murray Alannah, Buckley Christina E, O'Neill Maeve, Mehigan Brian, McCormick Paul H, Kelly Michael E, Larkin John O
Аннотация
PURPOSE/AIM: Perianal wound healing and/or complications are common following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Although primary closure is commonly undertaken, myocutaneous flap closure such as vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAM) is thought to improve wound healing process and outcome. A comprehensive meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes of primary closure versus VRAM flap closure of perineal wound following APR.
METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched until the 8th of August 2023. Included studies underwent meta-analysis to compare outcomes of primary closure versus VRAM flap closure of perineal wound following APR. The primary outcome of interest was perineal wound complications, and the secondary outcomes were abdominal wound complications, dehiscence, wound healing time, length of hospital stay, and mortality.
RESULTS: Ten studies with 1141 patients were included. Overall, 853 patients underwent primary closure (74.8%) and 288 patients underwent VRAM (25.2%). Eight studies reported on perineal wound complications after APR: 38.2% (n = 263/688) in the primary closure group versus 32.8% (n = 80/244) in the VRAM group. Perineal complication rates were statistically significantly lower in the VRAM group versus primary closure ((M-H OR, 1.61; 95% CI 1.04-2.49; <p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: We highlight the advantage of VRAM flap closure over primary closure for perineal wounds following APR. However, tailoring operative strategy based on patient and disease factors remains important in optimising outcomes.
METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched until the 8th of August 2023. Included studies underwent meta-analysis to compare outcomes of primary closure versus VRAM flap closure of perineal wound following APR. The primary outcome of interest was perineal wound complications, and the secondary outcomes were abdominal wound complications, dehiscence, wound healing time, length of hospital stay, and mortality.
RESULTS: Ten studies with 1141 patients were included. Overall, 853 patients underwent primary closure (74.8%) and 288 patients underwent VRAM (25.2%). Eight studies reported on perineal wound complications after APR: 38.2% (n = 263/688) in the primary closure group versus 32.8% (n = 80/244) in the VRAM group. Perineal complication rates were statistically significantly lower in the VRAM group versus primary closure ((M-H OR, 1.61; 95% CI 1.04-2.49; <p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: We highlight the advantage of VRAM flap closure over primary closure for perineal wounds following APR. However, tailoring operative strategy based on patient and disease factors remains important in optimising outcomes.