The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2022
Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Initiatives in Cleft Lip and Palate Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Grue Brendan, McGuire Connor, Hong Paul, Bezuhly Michael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cleft lip and/or palate repair techniques require continued reevaluation of best practice through high-quality evidence. The objective of this systematic review was to highlight the existing evidence for patient safety and quality improvement (QI) initiatives in cleft lip and palate surgery.
METHODS: A systematic review of published literature evaluating patient safety and QI in patients with cleft lip and/or palate was conducted from database inception to June 9, 2022, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Quality appraisal of included studies was conducted using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies, Cochrane, or a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 instruments, according to study type.
RESULTS: Sixty-one studies met inclusion criteria, with most published between 2010 and 2020 (63.9%). Randomized controlled trials represented the most common study design (37.7%). Half of all included studies were related to the topic of pain and analgesia, with many supporting the use of infraorbital nerve block using 0.25% bupivacaine. The second most common intervention examined was use of perioperative antibiotics in reducing fistula and infection (11.5%). Other studies examined optimal age and closure material for cleft lip repair, early recovery after surgery protocols, interventions to reduce blood loss, and safety of outpatient surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety and QI studies in cleft surgery were of moderate quality overall and covered a wide range of interventions. To further enhance PS in cleft repair, more high-quality research in the areas of perioperative pharmaceutical usage, appropriate wound closure materials, and optimal surgical timing are needed.
METHODS: A systematic review of published literature evaluating patient safety and QI in patients with cleft lip and/or palate was conducted from database inception to June 9, 2022, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Quality appraisal of included studies was conducted using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies, Cochrane, or a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 instruments, according to study type.
RESULTS: Sixty-one studies met inclusion criteria, with most published between 2010 and 2020 (63.9%). Randomized controlled trials represented the most common study design (37.7%). Half of all included studies were related to the topic of pain and analgesia, with many supporting the use of infraorbital nerve block using 0.25% bupivacaine. The second most common intervention examined was use of perioperative antibiotics in reducing fistula and infection (11.5%). Other studies examined optimal age and closure material for cleft lip repair, early recovery after surgery protocols, interventions to reduce blood loss, and safety of outpatient surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety and QI studies in cleft surgery were of moderate quality overall and covered a wide range of interventions. To further enhance PS in cleft repair, more high-quality research in the areas of perioperative pharmaceutical usage, appropriate wound closure materials, and optimal surgical timing are needed.