首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of arthroplasty >Wound Closure Techniques for Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Evidence-Based Review of the Literature
【24h】

Wound Closure Techniques for Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Evidence-Based Review of the Literature

机译:全膝关节形成术的伤口闭合技术:对文献的基于证据综述

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Background This literature review is aimed at identifying the different methods for superficial and deep wound closure in total knee arthroplasty and evaluating their outcomes. We evaluated (1) closure time, (2) infection and other complication rates, and (3) local wound-related outcomes. Methods A thorough search of the literature was performed using 3 electronic databases. Inclusion criteria included manuscripts that were written in English and available in full-text format. Reports were stratified into those that describe deep closure (7) and those that describe superficial closure (11). Results In superficial closure, staples may provide the fastest closure, adhesives, lower incidence of superficial complications, and subcuticular suture closures, greatest blood flow. In deep closure, barbed sutures may allow for faster closure time while providing similar postoperative complication rates and outcomes when compared to traditional sutures. The use of barbed sutures has been shown to utilize fewer resources and may potentially lead to a slight reduction in costs. Conclusion Ultimately, no optimal closure technique has been developed, and current studies do not provide a clear evidence-based answer. This field needs much more evidence-based studies before one can draw conclusions. Even though some of these studies are prospective and randomized, they may not be generalizable. Also, many of the studies have small numbers and are subject to type II errors and fragility. Certainly, more studies are needed to truly understand the advantages and disadvantages of these new methods. Nevertheless, this review allows orthopedists to evaluate the differences between closure methods.
机译:摘要背景本文文献综述旨在识别全膝关节形成术中浅表和深伤闭合的不同方法,并评估其结果。我们评估(1)封闭时间,(2)感染和其他并发症率,以及(3)局部伤口相关的结果。方法使用3个电子数据库进行彻底搜索文献。包含标准包括用英语编写的手稿,以全文格式提供。报告分为描述深封闭(7)和描述浅表闭合(11)的人。结果浅表闭合,钉书针可提供最快的封闭,粘合剂,浅表并发症的发病率,血压缝合闭合,最大的血流。在深封闭方面,倒带缝合线可以允许更快的闭包时间,同时提供与传统缝合线相比类似的术后并发症率和结果。已显示使用带倒钩缝合线来利用更少的资源,可能导致成本略微降低。结论最终,没有开发出最佳的闭合技术,目前的研究没有提供明确的基于证据的答案。在一个人可以得出结论之前,这个领域需要更多的基于证据的研究。尽管这些研究中的一些是潜在的并且随机化,但它们也可能不易。此外,许多研究具有较少的数量,并且受到II型错误和脆弱性的影响。当然,需要更多的研究来真正了解这些新方法的优缺点。然而,这篇评论允许矫形家评估封闭方法之间的差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号