莫氏显微摄影手术中无菌手套与非无菌手套感染率的比较:最新系统回顾和元分析

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 DERMATOLOGY Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1177/12034754241277513
Rubiana Sarto, Lívia F. Pereira, Yasmin Mesquita, Regina C. Chater, Izadora Lapenda, Luana Moury, Rafaela Moraes-Souza
{"title":"莫氏显微摄影手术中无菌手套与非无菌手套感染率的比较:最新系统回顾和元分析","authors":"Rubiana Sarto, Lívia F. Pereira, Yasmin Mesquita, Regina C. Chater, Izadora Lapenda, Luana Moury, Rafaela Moraes-Souza","doi":"10.1177/12034754241277513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a well-established technique for the removal of various types of skin cancers. While sterile gloves (SG) are commonly used in skin surgeries such as MMS, additional understanding of their effectiveness compared to nonsterile gloves (NSG) in preventing local infection is required.Objective:We aimed to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the use of SG with NSG for local infection rate post-MMS and point out cost discrepancies between these 2 scenarios.Methods:We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane for studies published up to August 2023 comparing the use of SG with NSG during MMS that reported the outcome of wound infection.Results:A total of 4 studies with 10,644 MMS were included, of which 7512 (70.6%) were performed with SG and 3132 (29.4%) were done with NSG. In the SG group, 232 out of 7512 cases (3.1%) developed infection compared to 64 out of 3132 (2.0%) in the NSG group [odds ratio (OR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.52; P = .39; I<jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 0%]. Therefore, the post-MMS infection rates were not significantly different between SG and NSG groups, including in the excision (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.48-1.79; P = .81; I<jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 0%) and reconstruction (OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.85-1.60; P = .34; I<jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 0%) subanalysis. Regarding the mean cost of the gloves, the NSG pair was $0.24, approximately 10% of the price of the SG pair ($2.27).Conclusion:The results support that, compared to SG, NSG are equally effective in preventing infections during MMS while offering significant cost savings without compromising patient outcomes. Protocol registration: PROSPERO, CRD42023458525","PeriodicalId":15403,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Infection Rate Between Sterile and Nonsterile Gloves During Mohs Micrographic Surgery: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Rubiana Sarto, Lívia F. Pereira, Yasmin Mesquita, Regina C. Chater, Izadora Lapenda, Luana Moury, Rafaela Moraes-Souza\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/12034754241277513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background:Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a well-established technique for the removal of various types of skin cancers. While sterile gloves (SG) are commonly used in skin surgeries such as MMS, additional understanding of their effectiveness compared to nonsterile gloves (NSG) in preventing local infection is required.Objective:We aimed to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the use of SG with NSG for local infection rate post-MMS and point out cost discrepancies between these 2 scenarios.Methods:We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane for studies published up to August 2023 comparing the use of SG with NSG during MMS that reported the outcome of wound infection.Results:A total of 4 studies with 10,644 MMS were included, of which 7512 (70.6%) were performed with SG and 3132 (29.4%) were done with NSG. In the SG group, 232 out of 7512 cases (3.1%) developed infection compared to 64 out of 3132 (2.0%) in the NSG group [odds ratio (OR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.52; P = .39; I<jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 0%]. Therefore, the post-MMS infection rates were not significantly different between SG and NSG groups, including in the excision (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.48-1.79; P = .81; I<jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 0%) and reconstruction (OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.85-1.60; P = .34; I<jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 0%) subanalysis. Regarding the mean cost of the gloves, the NSG pair was $0.24, approximately 10% of the price of the SG pair ($2.27).Conclusion:The results support that, compared to SG, NSG are equally effective in preventing infections during MMS while offering significant cost savings without compromising patient outcomes. Protocol registration: PROSPERO, CRD42023458525\",\"PeriodicalId\":15403,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/12034754241277513\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/12034754241277513","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:莫斯显微摄影手术(MMS)是一种用于切除各种类型皮肤癌的成熟技术。目的:我们旨在进行一项最新的系统综述和荟萃分析,比较使用无菌手套(SG)和非无菌手套(NSG)对莫氏显微放射手术后局部感染率的影响,并指出这两种情况下的成本差异。方法:我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane上截至2023年8月发表的比较MMS期间使用SG和NSG的研究,这些研究报告了伤口感染的结果。在 SG 组中,7512 例中有 232 例(3.1%)发生感染,而在 NSG 组中,3132 例中有 64 例(2.0%)发生感染[几率比(OR)1.14;95% 置信区间(CI)0.85-1.52;P = .39;I2 = 0%]。因此,SG 组和 NSG 组的 MMS 后感染率没有明显差异,包括在切除术(OR 0.92;95% CI 0.48-1.79;P = .81;I2 = 0%)和重建术(OR 1.17;95% CI 0.85-1.60;P = .34;I2 = 0%)的子分析中。结论:研究结果表明,与 SG 相比,NSG 在预防 MMS 期间的感染方面同样有效,同时在不影响患者预后的情况下大大节约了成本。协议注册:PROPERCO, CRD42023458525
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of Infection Rate Between Sterile and Nonsterile Gloves During Mohs Micrographic Surgery: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Background:Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a well-established technique for the removal of various types of skin cancers. While sterile gloves (SG) are commonly used in skin surgeries such as MMS, additional understanding of their effectiveness compared to nonsterile gloves (NSG) in preventing local infection is required.Objective:We aimed to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the use of SG with NSG for local infection rate post-MMS and point out cost discrepancies between these 2 scenarios.Methods:We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane for studies published up to August 2023 comparing the use of SG with NSG during MMS that reported the outcome of wound infection.Results:A total of 4 studies with 10,644 MMS were included, of which 7512 (70.6%) were performed with SG and 3132 (29.4%) were done with NSG. In the SG group, 232 out of 7512 cases (3.1%) developed infection compared to 64 out of 3132 (2.0%) in the NSG group [odds ratio (OR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.52; P = .39; I2 = 0%]. Therefore, the post-MMS infection rates were not significantly different between SG and NSG groups, including in the excision (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.48-1.79; P = .81; I2 = 0%) and reconstruction (OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.85-1.60; P = .34; I2 = 0%) subanalysis. Regarding the mean cost of the gloves, the NSG pair was $0.24, approximately 10% of the price of the SG pair ($2.27).Conclusion:The results support that, compared to SG, NSG are equally effective in preventing infections during MMS while offering significant cost savings without compromising patient outcomes. Protocol registration: PROSPERO, CRD42023458525
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.30%
发文量
98
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery (JCMS) aims to reflect the state of the art in cutaneous biology and dermatology by providing original scientific writings, as well as a complete critical review of the dermatology literature for clinicians, trainees, and academicians. JCMS endeavours to bring readers cutting edge dermatologic information in two distinct formats. Part of each issue features scholarly research and articles on issues of basic and applied science, insightful case reports, comprehensive continuing medical education, and in depth reviews, all of which provide theoretical framework for practitioners to make sound practical decisions. The evolving field of dermatology is highlighted through these articles. In addition, part of each issue is dedicated to making the most important developments in dermatology easily accessible to the clinician by presenting well-chosen, well-written, and highly organized information in a format that is interesting, clearly presented, and useful to patient care.
期刊最新文献
Itch and Insomnia in Patients With Prurigo Nodularis and Other Dermatologic Conditions. Cutaneous Collagenous Vasculopathy: A Retrospective Clinical and Histopathologic Analysis of 34 Cases. Effectiveness of Weight Loss Drugs in the Management of Hiradenitis Suppurativa: A Systematic Review. Off-Label Topical and Oral Roflumilast Treatment in Dermatology: A Systematic Review. Impact of Anchoring on Acne Treatment Preference.
×
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