The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2024
Ultrasonography-guided drainage versus surgical drainage for deep neck space abscesses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Alzaid Mohammad, Ramadhan Mohammed, Abul Ahmad, Karam Mohammad, Alsaif Abdulmalik, Stapleton Emma
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare ultrasonography-guided drainage versus conventional surgical incision and drainage in deep neck space abscesses.
METHODS: The study was pre-registered on the National Institute of Health Research Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023466809) and adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The Medline, Embase and Central databases were searched. Primary outcomes were length of hospital stay and recurrence. Heterogeneity and bias risk were assessed, and a fixed-effects model was applied.
RESULTS: Of 646 screened articles, 7 studies enrolling 384 participants were included. Ultrasonography-guided drainage was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay (mean difference = -2.31, p < 0.00001), but no statistically significant difference was noted in recurrence rate compared to incision and drainage (odds ratio = 2.02, p = 0.21). Ultrasonography-guided drainage appeared to be associated with cost savings and better cosmetic outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography-guided drainage was associated with a shorter hospital stay, making it a viable and perhaps more cost-effective alternative. More randomised trials with adequate outcomes reporting are recommended to optimise the available evidence.
METHODS: The study was pre-registered on the National Institute of Health Research Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023466809) and adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The Medline, Embase and Central databases were searched. Primary outcomes were length of hospital stay and recurrence. Heterogeneity and bias risk were assessed, and a fixed-effects model was applied.
RESULTS: Of 646 screened articles, 7 studies enrolling 384 participants were included. Ultrasonography-guided drainage was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay (mean difference = -2.31, p < 0.00001), but no statistically significant difference was noted in recurrence rate compared to incision and drainage (odds ratio = 2.02, p = 0.21). Ultrasonography-guided drainage appeared to be associated with cost savings and better cosmetic outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography-guided drainage was associated with a shorter hospital stay, making it a viable and perhaps more cost-effective alternative. More randomised trials with adequate outcomes reporting are recommended to optimise the available evidence.