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}
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
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.