Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the use of prophylactic antibiotics in hand trauma surgery

Background: The use of prophylactic antibiotics in surgery is contentious. With the rise in antimicrobial resistance, evidence-based antibiotic use should be followed. This systematic review and network meta-analysis will assess the effectiveness of different antibiotics on the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) following hand trauma surgery. Methods and analysis: The databases Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be searched. Abstracts will be screened by two persons independently to identify eligible studies. This systematic review will include both randomised and non-randomised prospective comparative studies in participants with hand and/or wrist injuries requiring surgery; bite injuries will be excluded. The network meta-analysis will compare the use of different prophylactic antibiotics against each other, placebo and/or no antibiotics on the development of SSI within 30 days of surgery (or 90 days if there is an implanted device). The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2 will be used to assess the risk of methodological bias in randomised controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottowa scale (NOS) will be used to assess the risk of bias in non-randomised studies. A random-effects network meta-analysis will be conducted along with subgroup analyses looking at antibiotic timing, injury type, and operation location. Sensitivity analyses including only low risk-of-bias studies will be conducted, and the confidence in the results will be assessed using Confidence in Network Meta‐Analysis (CINEMA). Discussion: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to provide an up-to-date synthesis of the studies assessing the use of antibiotics following hand and wrist trauma to enable evidence-based peri-operative prescribing. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023429618

Protocol for a systematic review of venous coupler devices versus hand-sewn anastomosis for microsurgical free flap reconstruction

Abstract Background A patent microvascular anastomosis is of paramount importance in free tissue transfer. Anastomotic coupler devices provide an alternative to technically demanding hand-sewn venous anastomosis. Various advantages of these devices have been discussed but previous systematic reviews had methodological flaws or did not perform a meta-analysis. This review aims to evaluate the quality of the evidence and quantify the efficacy and safety of venous couplers compared to hand-sewn anastomosis. Methods A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed. A comprehensive search strategy has been developed and will be applied to the databases MEDLINE and Embase from inception to October 2018. All clinical studies using anastomotic coupler devices for venous anastomoses in free tissue transfer will be eligible for inclusion. Screening of studies and data extraction will be performed independently by two authors. Our primary outcome is anastomotic venous thrombosis. Secondary outcomes will include time to complete the venous anastomosis, tearing of veins, anastomotic leakage, flap loss/failure and fiscal outcomes. The risk of bias for included studies will be assessed by using the ROBINS-I tool, and recommendations based on the evidence will be made using the GRADE approach. Descriptive statistical analyses will be used and if two or more studies report the same outcome, data will be pooled for comparative analysis. A direct comparison meta-analysis will be performed if possible. Discussion There has been no comparison of coupled and hand-sewn venous anastomoses using a robust and validated methodology preceded by a protocol and performing meta-analysis. Included studies are expected to be mainly observational and prone to bias; however, there is value in summarising the evidence, assessing its risk of bias and performing meta-analysis to guide clinicians. By using a broad approach including all types of flaps, we foresee inherent differences regarding the unit of analysis and different anatomic sites. This will limit the validity of our conclusions but is unavoidable. We will seek unpublished data from authors and perform subgroup analysis where appropriate. Limitations and areas of uncertainty will be discussed to guide future research. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD4201811011

The Wire Study—a protocol for a multi-stage feasibility study evaluating K-wire fixation of hand fractures in the UK

Abstract Background Hand fractures are common and sometimes require surgery to restore function. Placement of Kirschner wires (K-wires) is the most common form of surgical fixation. After placement, a key decision is whether to bury the end of a K-wire or leave it protruding from the skin (exposed). A recent systematic review found no evidence to support either approach and a national clinician and surgeon survey demonstrated further uncertainty. We aim to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the cost and clinical effectiveness of buried versus exposed Kirschner wires for adults with metacarpal or phalangeal fractures. Methods We will employ three methodologies: a national service evaluation of current clinical practice, patient and surgeon focus groups and a consensus meeting to finalise the protocol for a randomised controlled trial. For the service evaluation, all outcomes will be summarised using descriptive statistics overall and split by group (buried versus exposed K-wires). Information collected in the patient focus groups will be analysed thematically. The surgeon consensus meeting will address each part of the design in turn and through discussion agree a final protocol. Discussion The study may be monitored, or audited in accordance with the current approved protocol, Good Clinical Practice (GCP), relevant regulations and standard operating procedures. The Chief Investigator will submit and, where necessary, obtain approval from the above parties for all substantial amendments to the original approved documents. A feasibility study report will be published by the Wire Study Steering committee. Additional members of the steering group and citable collaborators will be listed within the manuscript and their roles identified