Surgical endoscopy · 2009
Meta-analysis of skin adhesives versus sutures in closure of laparoscopic port-site wounds.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание 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.
Sajid Muhammad S, Siddiqui Mohammed R, Khan Munir A, Baig Mirza K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effectiveness of skin adhesives and sutures in the closure of laparoscopic port-site wounds.
METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to find relevant randomized controlled trials and their data was analyzed to generate a summative outcome.
RESULTS: Seven trials on port-site wound closure after laparoscopic procedures encompassing 902 patients were retrieved from the electronic databases. Four randomized controlled trials on 404 patients qualified for the review according to inclusion criteria. In both fixed- and random-effects models, there was no difference between the two port-site wound closure techniques in terms of wound infection, wound dehiscence and, patient satisfaction. However, statistically tissue adhesives were quicker in port-site wound closure as compared with sutures.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this review, there is insufficient evidence that port-site wound closure technique by tissue adhesives is superior to traditional suture closure technique in terms of wound infection, wound dehiscence, and patient satisfaction. However, tissue adhesives are quicker in port-site wound closure. A multicentre randomized controlled trial is required in order to obtain stronger evidence.
METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to find relevant randomized controlled trials and their data was analyzed to generate a summative outcome.
RESULTS: Seven trials on port-site wound closure after laparoscopic procedures encompassing 902 patients were retrieved from the electronic databases. Four randomized controlled trials on 404 patients qualified for the review according to inclusion criteria. In both fixed- and random-effects models, there was no difference between the two port-site wound closure techniques in terms of wound infection, wound dehiscence and, patient satisfaction. However, statistically tissue adhesives were quicker in port-site wound closure as compared with sutures.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this review, there is insufficient evidence that port-site wound closure technique by tissue adhesives is superior to traditional suture closure technique in terms of wound infection, wound dehiscence, and patient satisfaction. However, tissue adhesives are quicker in port-site wound closure. A multicentre randomized controlled trial is required in order to obtain stronger evidence.