학술논문
Optimal primary wound closure methods after thyroid and parathyroid surgery: network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
Systematic Review
Systematic Review
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Source
BJS Open. February 2023, Vol. 7 Issue 1
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Introduction Thyroid and parathyroid surgeries are increasingly common in the Western world, with a combined 120000 of these surgeries being performed in the USA each year, including both benign and [...]
Background: At present, there is no consensus on optimal neck wound closure methods after thyroid and parathyroid surgery. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating the optimal neck closure method after thyroid and parathyroid surgery. Methods: A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was performed for RCTs comparing at least two closure methods according to PRISMA-network meta-analysis guidelines. Analysis was performed using R packages and Shiny. Results: Eighteen RCTs evaluating six closure methods (that is adhesive (28.5 per cent, 404 patients), absorbable subcuticular suture (18.1 per cent, 257 patients), non-absorbable subcuticular suture (16.8 per cent, 238 patients), staples (26.3 per cent, 372 patients), steristrips (8.1 per cent, 115 patients), and conventional suture (2.1 per cent, 30 patients)) in 1416 patients were included. At network meta-analysis, there was no difference in complication, infection, dehiscence, or haematoma rates irrespective of closure method used. Staples reduced closure duration versus absorbable subcuticular suture (mean difference (MD) 8.50, 95 per cent c.i. 6.90 to 10.10) and non-absorbable subcuticular suture (MD 0.30, 95 per cent c.i. 0.23 to 0.37), whereas adhesives (MD -1.05, 95 per cent c.i. -1.31 to -0.79) reduced closure time relative to staples. Cosmesis was improved after non-absorbable subcuticular suture (odds ratio (OR) 3.41, 95 per cent c.i. 1.66 to 7.00) relative to staples. Staples reduced patient satisfaction (OR 0.04, 95 per cent c.i. 0.00 to 0.33) and ability to shower (OR 0.04, 95 per cent c.i. 0.00 to 0.33) relative to adhesives. Conclusion: Despite staples decreasing closure times, this advantage is offset by reduced patient satisfaction, ability to shower, and cosmesis compared with patients with wounds closed using adhesives, absorbable subcuticular suture, and non-absorbable subcuticular suture. Therefore, these closure methods are favourable for closing neck wounds due to more acceptable patient-reported outcomes, without compromising the safety of the procedure.
Background: At present, there is no consensus on optimal neck wound closure methods after thyroid and parathyroid surgery. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating the optimal neck closure method after thyroid and parathyroid surgery. Methods: A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was performed for RCTs comparing at least two closure methods according to PRISMA-network meta-analysis guidelines. Analysis was performed using R packages and Shiny. Results: Eighteen RCTs evaluating six closure methods (that is adhesive (28.5 per cent, 404 patients), absorbable subcuticular suture (18.1 per cent, 257 patients), non-absorbable subcuticular suture (16.8 per cent, 238 patients), staples (26.3 per cent, 372 patients), steristrips (8.1 per cent, 115 patients), and conventional suture (2.1 per cent, 30 patients)) in 1416 patients were included. At network meta-analysis, there was no difference in complication, infection, dehiscence, or haematoma rates irrespective of closure method used. Staples reduced closure duration versus absorbable subcuticular suture (mean difference (MD) 8.50, 95 per cent c.i. 6.90 to 10.10) and non-absorbable subcuticular suture (MD 0.30, 95 per cent c.i. 0.23 to 0.37), whereas adhesives (MD -1.05, 95 per cent c.i. -1.31 to -0.79) reduced closure time relative to staples. Cosmesis was improved after non-absorbable subcuticular suture (odds ratio (OR) 3.41, 95 per cent c.i. 1.66 to 7.00) relative to staples. Staples reduced patient satisfaction (OR 0.04, 95 per cent c.i. 0.00 to 0.33) and ability to shower (OR 0.04, 95 per cent c.i. 0.00 to 0.33) relative to adhesives. Conclusion: Despite staples decreasing closure times, this advantage is offset by reduced patient satisfaction, ability to shower, and cosmesis compared with patients with wounds closed using adhesives, absorbable subcuticular suture, and non-absorbable subcuticular suture. Therefore, these closure methods are favourable for closing neck wounds due to more acceptable patient-reported outcomes, without compromising the safety of the procedure.