...
首页> 外文期刊>The American journal of emergency medicine >Comparison of the loop technique with incision and drainage for soft tissue abscesses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Comparison of the loop technique with incision and drainage for soft tissue abscesses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:软组织脓肿切口和排水的环路技术比较:系统评价与荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Abstract Introduction Skin and soft tissue infections are a common presentation to the emergency department. Traditional management of abscesses involves a linear incision through the center of the abscess with packing placed. The loop drainage technique (LDT) is an alternate approach that may reduce pain and scarring, as well as decrease the number of follow up visits needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of the LDT with conventional incision and drainage (CID) in the treatment of soft tissue abscesses. Methods PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and bibliographies of selected articles were assessed for all retrospective, prospective, or randomized controlled trials comparing the LDT to CID with an outcome of treatment failure, as defined by the individual study. Data were double extracted into a predefined worksheet and quality analysis was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Data were summarized and a meta-analysis was performed with subgroup analyses by adult versus pediatric age groups. Results This systematic review identified four studies comprising 470 total patients. Overall, the CID technique failed in 25 of 265 cases (9.43%). The LDT failed in 8 of 195 cases (4.10%). There was an odds ratio of 2.63 (95% CI 1.04 to 6.63) in favor of higher failures in the CID group. Funnel plot analysis demonstrated no evidence of publication bias. Subgroups analysis by age group demonstrated improved efficacy of the LDT in pediatric patients, but the adult subgroup did not reach statistical significance. Discussion The existing literature suggests that LDT is associated with a lower failure rate than CID. However, the data is limited by small sample sizes and predominantly retrospective study designs. Given the potential for less pain, decreased scarring, and lower associated healthcare costs, this technique should be considered for the treatment of skin and soft tissue abscesses in the ED setting, but further studies are needed.
机译:摘要介绍肌肤和软组织感染是急诊部的常见演示。脓肿的传统管理涉及穿过脓肿中心的线性切口,其中放置包装。环路排水技术(LDT)是一种可以减少疼痛和瘢痕的替代方法,以及减少所需的跟进次数。这种系统审查和荟萃分析旨在比较LDT与常规切口和排水(CID)治疗软组织脓肿的疗效。方法采用PubMed,Cinahl,Scopus,系统评价的Cochrane数据库,对受控试验的Cochrane Central寄存器以及所选物品的所有回顾性,前瞻性或随机对照试验进行评估,所述可治疗或随机对照试验将LDT与治疗失败的结果进行比较,由个人研究所定义。数据被提取到预定义工作表中,使用偏置工具的Cochrane风险进行质量分析。总结了数据,并通过成人与儿科年龄组进行亚组分析进行了荟萃分析。结果该系统审查确定了四项研究,包括470名患者。总体而言,CID技术在265例中有25例(9.43%)失败。 LDT在195例中的8例中失败(4.10%)。几率比为2.63(95%CI 1.04至6.63),支持CID组中的更高失败。漏斗情节分析证明没有出版物偏见的证据。年龄组的亚群分析表明,LDT在儿科患者中的疗效提高,但成年亚组没有达到统计学意义。讨论现有文献表明LDT与比CID的失败率较低。然而,数据受小型样本大小的限制,主要是回顾性研究设计。鉴于较少疼痛的潜力,降低瘢痕形成,较低的相关医疗费用,应考虑治疗ED设置中的皮肤和软组织脓肿,但需要进一步研究。

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