Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024
Comparison between novel zipper device and conventional methods for skin closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Shrestha Oshan, Basukala Sunil, Karki Sagun, Thapa Niranjan, Bhugai Nabaraj, Bohara Sujan, Joshi Niraj, Paudel Sushanta
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The zipper device is a wound closure device that can be directly applied over the intact skin on either side of the wound edges and does not need anchoring into the skin or subcutaneous plane. The noninvasive nature of the zipper device makes it less time-consuming and less painful, but its effectiveness and related complications need to be studied.
METHODS: Prospective registration of the protocol followed in this study was done. Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles, and their screening was completed, followed by data extraction and analysis. The odds ratio, mean difference, or standardised mean difference were used as an effect measure per the nature of the variables. Surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, skin closure time, scar score, and patient satisfaction were compared in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were identified, out of which eight compared zippers with sutures and two compared zippers with stapler devices. Compared to the suture, the zipper device took 4.9 min less to close the incision, and the scar scale outcome reported after one month was inferior, while other results were not significant. Staples showed a lower patient satisfaction level and no difference in complications.
CONCLUSION: The zipper device is a less technically demanding and less time-consuming method of skin closure, with no significant difference in the complication rate compared to conventional methods. The zipper device is an effective measure to use in settings with less expertise or at health institutions after assessing the cost at the local level.
METHODS: Prospective registration of the protocol followed in this study was done. Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles, and their screening was completed, followed by data extraction and analysis. The odds ratio, mean difference, or standardised mean difference were used as an effect measure per the nature of the variables. Surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, skin closure time, scar score, and patient satisfaction were compared in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were identified, out of which eight compared zippers with sutures and two compared zippers with stapler devices. Compared to the suture, the zipper device took 4.9 min less to close the incision, and the scar scale outcome reported after one month was inferior, while other results were not significant. Staples showed a lower patient satisfaction level and no difference in complications.
CONCLUSION: The zipper device is a less technically demanding and less time-consuming method of skin closure, with no significant difference in the complication rate compared to conventional methods. The zipper device is an effective measure to use in settings with less expertise or at health institutions after assessing the cost at the local level.