RESUMO
PURPOSE: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a frequent complication after abdominal surgery and impacts morbidity, mortality and medical costs. This systematic review evaluates whether the use of triclosan-coated sutures for closing the fascia during abdominal surgery reduces the rate of SSI compared to uncoated sutures. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. On February 17, 2024, a literature search was performed in Medline ALL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on abdominal fascial closure in human adults, comparing triclosan-coated and uncoated sutures, were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Pooled meta-analysis was performed using RevMan. RESULTS: Out of 1523 records, eleven RCTs were included, with a total of 10,234 patients: 5159 in the triclosan-coated group and 5075 in the uncoated group. The incidence of SSI was statistically significantly lower in the triclosan-coated group (14.8% vs. 17.3%) with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.84 (95% CI [0.75, 0.93], p = 0.001). When polydioxanone was evaluated separately (coated N = 3999, uncoated N = 3900), triclosan-coating reduced SSI; 17.5% vs. 20.1%, OR 0.86 (95% CI [0.77; 0.96], p = 0.008). When polyglactin 910 was evaluated (coated N = 1160, uncoated N = 1175), triclosan-coating reduced the incidence of SSI; 5.4% vs. 7.8%, OR 0.67 (95% CI [0.48; 0.94], p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: According to the results of this meta-analysis the use of triclosan-coated sutures for fascial closure statistically significantly reduces the incidence of SSI after abdominal surgery with a risk difference of about 2%.
RESUMO
Background: Inguinal hernia belongs to the most common surgical pathology worldwide. Approximately, one third is asymptomatic. The value of watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia has been established in a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a RCT comparing WW and elective surgery. Methods: In the original study, men aged ≥50 years with an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to WW or elective repair. In the present study, the primary outcome was the 12-year crossover rate to surgery, secondary outcomes were time-to-crossover, patient regret, pain, quality of life and incarceration. Dutch Trial Registry: NTR629. Findings: Out of 496 originally analysed patients, 488 (98.4%) were evaluable for chart review (WW: n = 258, surgery: n = 230), and 200 (41.0%) for telephone contact (WW: n = 106, surgery: n = 94) between November 2021 and March 2022 with a median 12 years follow-up (IQR 9-14). After 12 years, the estimated cumulative crossover rate to surgery was 64.2%, which was higher in mildly symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients (71.7% versus 60.4%, HR 1.451, 95% CI: 1.064-1.979). Time-to-crossover was longer in asymptomatic patients (50% after 6.0 years versus 2.0 years, p = 0.019). Patient regret was higher in the WW group (37.7 versus 18.0%, p = 0.002), as well as pain/discomfort (p = 0.031). Quality of life did not differ (p = 0.737). In the WW group, incarceration occurred in 10/255 patients (3.9%). Interpretation: During 12-year follow-up, most WW patients crossed over to surgery, significantly earlier with mildly symptomatic hernia. Considering the relatively low incarceration rate, WW might still be an option in asymptomatic patients with a clear preference and being well-informed about pros and cons. Funding: The initial trial was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). This long-term study did not receive funding.
RESUMO
AIM: Minimally invasive colorectal surgery reduces surgical trauma with better preservation of abdominal wall integrity, but the extraction site is still at risk of incisional hernia (IH). The aim of this study was to determine pooled incidence of IH for each type of extraction site and to compare rates of IH after midline, nonmidline and Pfannenstiel extraction. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Single-armed and multiple-armed cohort studies and randomized controlled trials regarding minimally invasive colorectal surgery were searched from five databases. Outcomes were pooled and compared with random-effects, inverse-variance models. Risk of bias within the studies was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tool. RESULTS: Thirty six studies were included, with a total 11,788 patients. The pooled extraction site IH rate was 16.0% for midline (n = 4081), 9.3% for umbilical (n = 2425), 5.2% for transverse (n = 3213), 9.4% for paramedian (n = 134) and 2.1% for Pfannenstiel (n = 1449). Nonmidline extraction (transverse and paramedian) showed significantly lower odds ratios (ORs) for IH when compared with midline extraction (including umbilical). Pfannenstiel extraction resulted in a significantly lower OR for IH compared with midline [OR 0.12 (0.50-0.30)], transverse [OR 0.25 (0.13-0.50)] and umbilical (OR 0.072 [0.033-0.16]) extraction sites. The risks of surgical site infection, seroma/haematoma or wound dehiscence were not significantly different in any of the analyses. CONCLUSION: Pfannenstiel extraction is the preferred method in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. In cases where Pfannenstiel extraction is not possible, surgeons should avoid specimen extraction in the midline.