Comparing packing and non-packing of the abscess cavity post incision and drainage of perianal abscess: A meta-analysis

H. Nour, Abdul Malik Magsi, H. Abdalla, Alexandra Mcwhirter, Ahmed Gadoura, M. Sajid
{"title":"Comparing packing and non-packing of the abscess cavity post incision and drainage of perianal abscess: A meta-analysis","authors":"H. Nour, Abdul Malik Magsi, H. Abdalla, Alexandra Mcwhirter, Ahmed Gadoura, M. Sajid","doi":"10.46439/gastro.2.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Pain is a very important factor in patient recovery and satisfaction. Following incision and drainage of perianal abscess, wound packing has been found to be very painful. The aim of this study is to compare packing the wound and not packing the wound after incision and drainage (I&D) of perianal abscess, taking into account recurrence rate, rate of occurrence of perianal fistula as well as post-operative pain.\n\nMaterials and Method: Standard medical electronic databases were searched with the help of a local librarian and relevant published randomised controlled trials (RCT) were shortlisted according to the inclusion criteria. The summated outcome of post-operative pain score, recurrence rate, and rate of occurrence of perianal fistula was evaluated using the principles of meta-analysis on RevMan 5 statistical software.\n\nResult: Three RCTs on 490 patients undergoing I&D of perianal abscess were found suitable for this meta-analysis. In the random effects model analysis, the post operative pain score was statistically lower in NPG [risk ratio 0.66, 95%, CI (0.36, 0.97), Z=4.25, P=0.0001]. There was no heterogeneity [Tau2=0.15; chi2=9.32; df=6; I2=36 %; p=0.16] between the studies, however, statistically it was not significant. In addition, there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups in terms of recurrence of perianal abscess or the occurrence of perianal fistula [risk ratio 0.64, 95%, CI (0.31, 1.31), Z=1.23, P=0.22], [risk ratio 1.41, 95%, CI (0.89, 2.23), Z=1.47, P=0.14] respectively.\n\nConclusion: Not packing the wound post I&D of perianal abscess is associated with significantly reduced VAS pain scores, which may result in improved recovery and patient satisfaction and has no effect on recurrence rate or the occurrence of perianal fistula. However, more RCTs recruiting a greater number of patients are required to endorse these findings.","PeriodicalId":91025,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental gastroenterology","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46439/gastro.2.012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pain is a very important factor in patient recovery and satisfaction. Following incision and drainage of perianal abscess, wound packing has been found to be very painful. The aim of this study is to compare packing the wound and not packing the wound after incision and drainage (I&D) of perianal abscess, taking into account recurrence rate, rate of occurrence of perianal fistula as well as post-operative pain. Materials and Method: Standard medical electronic databases were searched with the help of a local librarian and relevant published randomised controlled trials (RCT) were shortlisted according to the inclusion criteria. The summated outcome of post-operative pain score, recurrence rate, and rate of occurrence of perianal fistula was evaluated using the principles of meta-analysis on RevMan 5 statistical software. Result: Three RCTs on 490 patients undergoing I&D of perianal abscess were found suitable for this meta-analysis. In the random effects model analysis, the post operative pain score was statistically lower in NPG [risk ratio 0.66, 95%, CI (0.36, 0.97), Z=4.25, P=0.0001]. There was no heterogeneity [Tau2=0.15; chi2=9.32; df=6; I2=36 %; p=0.16] between the studies, however, statistically it was not significant. In addition, there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups in terms of recurrence of perianal abscess or the occurrence of perianal fistula [risk ratio 0.64, 95%, CI (0.31, 1.31), Z=1.23, P=0.22], [risk ratio 1.41, 95%, CI (0.89, 2.23), Z=1.47, P=0.14] respectively. Conclusion: Not packing the wound post I&D of perianal abscess is associated with significantly reduced VAS pain scores, which may result in improved recovery and patient satisfaction and has no effect on recurrence rate or the occurrence of perianal fistula. However, more RCTs recruiting a greater number of patients are required to endorse these findings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肛周脓肿切开引流后脓肿腔填塞与不填塞的比较:meta分析
背景:疼痛是影响患者康复和满意度的重要因素。在肛周脓肿切开引流后,伤口填塞非常疼痛。本研究的目的是比较肛周脓肿切开引流(I&D)后填塞创面与不填塞创面,考虑复发率、肛周瘘发生率及术后疼痛。材料和方法:在当地图书管理员的帮助下检索标准医学电子数据库,并根据纳入标准筛选相关已发表的随机对照试验(RCT)。采用RevMan 5统计软件进行meta分析,对术后疼痛评分、复发率和肛周瘘发生率的综合结果进行评估。结果:490例肛周脓肿患者接受I&D的3项随机对照试验适合本荟萃分析。在随机效应模型分析中,NPG组术后疼痛评分有统计学意义较低[风险比0.66,95%,CI (0.36, 0.97), Z=4.25, P=0.0001]。无异质性[Tau2=0.15;chi2 = 9.32;df = 6;I2 = 36%;P =0.16],但差异无统计学意义。此外,两组患者肛周脓肿复发率和肛周瘘发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义[风险比0.64,95%,CI (0.31, 1.31), Z=1.23, P=0.22],[风险比1.41,95%,CI (0.89, 2.23), Z=1.47, P=0.14]。结论:肛周脓肿I&D后不填塞伤口可显著降低VAS疼痛评分,提高患者的恢复和满意度,对复发率和肛周瘘的发生无影响。然而,需要更多的随机对照试验来招募更多的患者来支持这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Severe Olmesartan related enteropathy - a case report and literature review Colonic bleeding induced by a solitary juvenile polyp Primary gastric mucormycosis Comparing packing and non-packing of the abscess cavity post incision and drainage of perianal abscess: A meta-analysis Cognitive behavioral therapy for comorbid pediatric functional gastrointestinal disorders and anxiety: Systematic review and clinical applications
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1