Hydrosurgical debridement versus conventional surgical debridement for acute partial-thickness burns.

BACKGROUND: Burn injuries are the fourth most common traumatic injury, causing an estimated 180,000 deaths annually worldwide. Superficial burns can be managed with dressings alone, but deeper burns or those that fail to heal promptly are usually treated surgically. Acute burns surgery aims to debride burnt skin until healthy tissue is reached, at which point skin grafts or temporising dressings are applied. Conventional debridement is performed with an angled blade, tangentially shaving burned tissue until healthy tissue is encountered. Hydrosurgery, an alternative to conventional blade debridement, simultaneously debrides, irrigates, and removes tissue with the aim of minimising damage to uninjured tissue. Despite the increasing use of hydrosurgery, its efficacy and the risk of adverse events following surgery for burns is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of hydrosurgical debridement and skin grafting versus conventional surgical debridement and skin grafting for the treatment of acute partial-thickness burns. SEARCH METHODS: In December 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people of any age with acute partial-thickness burn injury and assessed the use of hydrosurgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: One RCT met the inclusion criteria of this review. The study sample size was 61 paediatric participants with acute partial-thickness burns of 3% to 4% total burn surface area. Participants were randomised to hydrosurgery or conventional debridement. There may be little or no difference in mean time to complete healing (mean difference (MD) 0.00 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.25 to 6.25) or postoperative infection risk (risk ratio 1.33, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.11). These results are based on very low-certainty evidence, which was downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. There may be little or no difference in operative time between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement (MD 0.2 minutes, 95% CI -12.2 to 12.6); again, the certainty of the evidence is very low, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. There may be little or no difference in scar outcomes at six months. Health-related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse outcomes were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review contains one randomised trial of hydrosurgery versus conventional debridement in a paediatric population with low percentage of total body surface area burn injuries. Based on the available trial data, there may be little or no difference between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement in terms of time to complete healing, postoperative infection, operative time, and scar outcomes at six months. These results are based on very low-certainty evidence. Further research evaluating these outcomes as well as health-related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse event outcomes is required.

Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after carpal tunnel decompression surgery.

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common problem and surgical decompression of the carpal tunnel is the most effective treatment. After surgical decompression, the palmar skin may be closed using either absorbable or non-absorbable sutures. To date, there is conflicting evidence regarding the ideal suture material and this formed the rationale for our review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after elective carpal tunnel decompression surgery in adults on postoperative pain, hand function, scar satisfaction, wound inflammation and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 30 October 2017: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two clinical trials registries on 30 October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing absorbable and non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after any form of carpal tunnel decompression surgery in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The unit of analysis was the hand rather than the patient. We performed meta-analysis of direct comparisons to generate standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in pain scores and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes, such as wound inflammation. The primary outcome was postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes included hand function, scar satisfaction, scar inflammation and adverse events (complications). We assessed the quality of evidence for key outcomes using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included five randomised trials (255 participants). The trials were all European (UK, Republic of Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands). Where quoted, the mean age of participants was between 48 and 53 years. The trials measured outcomes between one and 12 weeks postoperatively.Meta-analysis of postoperative pain scores for absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures at 10 days following open carpal tunnel decompression (OCTD) produced a SMD of 0.03 (95% CI -0.43 to 0.48; 3 studies, number of participants (N) = 137; I2 = 43%); the SMD suggests little or no difference, but with a high degree of uncertainty because of very low-quality evidence. At 10 days following endoscopic carpal tunnel decompression (ECTD), the SMD for postoperative pain with use of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures was -0.81 (95% CI -1.36 to -0.25; 1 study; N = 54); although the SMD is consistent with a large effect, the very low-quality evidence means the results are very uncertain. Only the OCTD studies provided pain data at 6 weeks, when the SMD was 0.06 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.84; 4 studies; N = 175; I2 = 84%), which indicates little or no evidence of difference, but with a high degree of uncertainty (very low-quality evidence). The RR for wound inflammation using absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures after OCTD was 2.28 (95% CI 0.24 to 21.91; N = 95; I2 = 90%) and after ECTD 0.93 (95% CI 0.06 to 14.09; 1 study, N = 54). Any difference in effect on wound inflammation is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low. One study reported postoperative hand function but found no evidence of a difference between suture types at two weeks (mean difference (MD) -0.10, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.33, N = 36), with similar findings at six and 12 weeks. Only the ECTD trial reported scar satisfaction, with 25 out of 28 people reporting a 'nice' result in the absorbable-suture group, versus 18 out of 26 in the group who received non-absorbable sutures (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.72, N = 54). These findings are also very uncertain as we judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. All studies were at high risk of bias for most domains. No trials reported adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether absorbable sutures confer better, worse or equivalent outcomes compared to non-absorbable sutures following carpal tunnel decompression, because the quality of evidence is very low. Use of absorbable suture eliminates the need for suture removal, which could confer considerable savings to patients and healthcare providers alike. We need rigorously-performed, non-inferiority randomised trials with economic analyses to inform choice of suture.

Outcomes of flap reconstruction for diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Clinical Studies.

BACKGROUND: People with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are at risk of major amputation, which is associated with a high mortality rate (exceeding 50% at five years) and reduced quality of life. We hypothesise that flap reconstruction of diabetic foot ulcers improves patient outcomes in comparison to standard treatment modalities including major amputation. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and grey literature were searched on 9 th February 2022. Comparative and single-arm studies reporting outcomes of DFU treated with local, regional or free flaps including function, limb loss, mortality, and flap failure were included. Risk of bias was assessed and meta-analysis of proportions was performed. RESULTS: 3,878 records were retrieved, of which 45 met the inclusion criteria, including 1,681 patients who underwent flap reconstruction of DFU. Free flaps were most commonly performed (n = 1,257, 72%). Only one study utilised a verified functional outcome measure. At 12 months, the mortality rate was 6.35% (95% C.I. 3.89 - 10.20), limb loss rate was 11.39% (95% C.I. 7.02 - 17.96) and the free flap failure rate was 9.95% (95% C.I. 8.19 - 12.05). All studies were at high risk of bias. A comparative meta-analysis of interventions was not performed due to study method and outcome heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: There is short-term evidence that flap reconstruction (including microsurgical transfer) has low mortality, limb loss and flap failure rates. However, there are limited high-quality comparative studies, and uncertainty remains regarding the outcome of DFU flap reconstruction in comparison to other treatments.

Free functional muscle transfer for upper limb paralysis - A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Functional restoration of upper limb paralysis represents a major reconstructive challenge. Free functional muscle transfer (FFMT) enables reanimation in patients with a lack of local donor tissues or delayed presentation. This systematic review summarises the evidence for FFMT in the reconstruction of upper limb paralysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed with a systematic review using methodology adapted from the Cochrane Handbook and the PRISMA statement. Data from included studies were compiled and narratively synthesised. Studies were assessed for risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 1155 records were screened, with 39 observational studies of 904 patients included. The most common aetiology was brachial plexus injury (736, 81.4%). Mean time from injury to intervention was 26 months. Restoration of elbow flexion was the commonest reconstructive goal. The most common donor muscle was gracilis (91.5%). Reported outcomes were heterogeneous with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in only 7 of 39 studies. Nearly half of FFMTs had a post-operative MRC grade of <4 and 18.1% had an MRC <3. Mean flap failure rate was 3.6% (range 0-10.5%). All studies were at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: FFMT may be an effective surgical intervention for upper limb paralysis; however, the current evidence has significant shortcomings. There is no consensus regarding outcome measures nor is it possible to identify prognostic factors for its effectiveness. This review highlights a need for improved study design with pre-operative assessment, standardisation in outcome reporting, and the use of PROMs to determine the effectiveness of FFMT in upper limb paralysis.

Outcome measurement in adult flexor tendon injury: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Defining the optimal, evidence-based management of flexor tendon injury remains challenging. Lack of consensus on which measures to use to assess the outcome of interventions is a key issue, especially with regard to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This systematic review defines the landscape of outcome measurement in studies on interventions for flexor tendon injuries to guide future research. METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was conducted using bespoke search strategies applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL and AMED. A protocol was developed and registered prospectively (CRD42020186780). We identified all studies describing adult patients undergoing interventions for acute hand flexor tendon injuries. RESULTS: Of the 4844 studies, 114 studies met the final inclusion criteria for evaluating the outcomes of 8127 participants with 9071 injured digits. Studies included 24 randomised controlled trials, 19 cohort studies and 61 case series. Nine different PROMs were used in 24 studies (22%): three site-specific PROMs, one generic quality-of-life measure and four visual analogue scales. Clinician-reported outcome measures were used in 103 studies (96%), such as the range of motion reported in 102 studies (94%). Adverse outcomes were reported in 96 studies (89%), with the most frequently reported adverse outcomes being tendon rupture and infection. Re-operation was reported in 21 studies (19%). The most frequently reported health economic outcome measure was the length of work absence, reported in ten studies (9%). CONCLUSIONS: There is variability in the use of outcome measures used to study interventions for flexor tendon injuries. An independent systematic review of the psychometric properties of the identified outcome measures and a specific multi-stakeholder consensus process may support optimal choice and standardisation for future studies.