Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after carpal tunnel decompression surgery

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common problem and surgical decompression of the carpal tunnel is the most effective treatment. After surgical decompression, the palmar skin may be closed using either absorbable or non-absorbable sutures. To date, there is conflicting evidence regarding the ideal suture material and this formed the rationale for our review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after elective carpal tunnel decompression surgery in adults on postoperative pain, hand function, scar satisfaction, wound inflammation and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 30 October 2017: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two clinical trials registries on 30 October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing absorbable and non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after any form of carpal tunnel decompression surgery in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The unit of analysis was the hand rather than the patient. We performed meta-analysis of direct comparisons to generate standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in pain scores and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes, such as wound inflammation. The primary outcome was postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes included hand function, scar satisfaction, scar inflammation and adverse events (complications). We assessed the quality of evidence for key outcomes using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included five randomised trials (255 participants). The trials were all European (UK, Republic of Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands). Where quoted, the mean age of participants was between 48 and 53 years. The trials measured outcomes between one and 12 weeks postoperatively.Meta-analysis of postoperative pain scores for absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures at 10 days following open carpal tunnel decompression (OCTD) produced a SMD of 0.03 (95% CI -0.43 to 0.48; 3 studies, number of participants (N) = 137; I2 = 43%); the SMD suggests little or no difference, but with a high degree of uncertainty because of very low-quality evidence. At 10 days following endoscopic carpal tunnel decompression (ECTD), the SMD for postoperative pain with use of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures was -0.81 (95% CI -1.36 to -0.25; 1 study; N = 54); although the SMD is consistent with a large effect, the very low-quality evidence means the results are very uncertain. Only the OCTD studies provided pain data at 6 weeks, when the SMD was 0.06 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.84; 4 studies; N = 175; I2 = 84%), which indicates little or no evidence of difference, but with a high degree of uncertainty (very low-quality evidence). The RR for wound inflammation using absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures after OCTD was 2.28 (95% CI 0.24 to 21.91; N = 95; I2 = 90%) and after ECTD 0.93 (95% CI 0.06 to 14.09; 1 study, N = 54). Any difference in effect on wound inflammation is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low. One study reported postoperative hand function but found no evidence of a difference between suture types at two weeks (mean difference (MD) -0.10, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.33, N = 36), with similar findings at six and 12 weeks. Only the ECTD trial reported scar satisfaction, with 25 out of 28 people reporting a 'nice' result in the absorbable-suture group, versus 18 out of 26 in the group who received non-absorbable sutures (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.72, N = 54). These findings are also very uncertain as we judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. All studies were at high risk of bias for most domains. No trials reported adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether absorbable sutures confer better, worse or equivalent outcomes compared to non-absorbable sutures following carpal tunnel decompression, because the quality of evidence is very low. Use of absorbable suture eliminates the need for suture removal, which could confer considerable savings to patients and healthcare providers alike. We need rigorously-performed, non-inferiority randomised trials with economic analyses to inform choice of suture

A systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse outcomes following non-buried versus buried kirschner wires for paediatric lateral condyle elbow fractures

PURPOSE: Fractures of the lateral condyle of the humerus in children are a common injury. If displaced or unstable they may require surgical reduction and fixation with Kirschner wires (K-wires). K-wires are placed using either an open or closed technique. The decision to bury or leave the ends extending through the skin is surgeon-dependent and based on factors including post-operative infection risk, bony union and ease of wire removal. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-buried versus buried K-wires for lateral condyle elbow fractures in children in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. A comprehensive search strategy included Medline, Embase and CINAHL via NICE Evidence from database inception to June 2017. Two authors independently reviewed, included or excluded articles, extracted data and assessed for quality with the ROBINS-I tool. We performed direct comparison meta-analysis for all adverse events, post-operative infection and failure of bony union. RESULTS: Three studies were analysed comprising of 434 participants. There was a significantly reduced relative risk of adverse events in the non-buried group, equating to approximately 45% reduced risk (RR 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.88). There were no significant differences in risk of post-operative infection or failure of bony union. All three cost-analyses in the included studies observed savings with non-buried K-wires. CONCLUSION: Non-buried K-wires for lateral condyle elbow fractures convey a lower risk of adverse events and may be more cost-effective compared with buried K-wires. Non-buried K-wires do not appear to increase the risk of infection or failure of bony union. These findings are limited by a high risk of bias due to inherent methodological flaws in the design of included studies

Perforator mapping reduces the operative time of DIEP flap breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of preoperative ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance angiography

Background: Prior to DIEP flap breast reconstruction, mapping the perforators of the lower abdominal wall using ultrasound, computed tomography angiography (CTA) or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) reduces the risk of flap failure. This review aimed to investigate the additional potential benefit of a reduction in operating time. Methods: We systematically searched the literature for studies concerning adult women undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction, which directly compared the operating times and adverse outcomes for those with and without preoperative perforator mapping by ultrasound, CTA or MRA. Outcomes were extracted, data meta-analysed and the quality of the evidence appraised. Results: Fourteen articles were included. Preoperative perforator mapping by CTA or MRA significantly reduced operating time (mean reduction of 54 minutes [95% CI 3, 105], p = 0.04), when directly compared to DIEP flap breast reconstruction with no perforator mapping. Further, perforator mapping by CTA was superior to ultrasound, as CTA saved more time in theatre (mean reduction of 58 minutes [95% CI 25, 91], p < 0.001) and was associated with a lower risk of partial flap failure (RR 0.15 [95% CI 0.04, 0.6], p = 0.007). All studies were at risk of methodological bias and the quality of the evidence was very low. Conclusions: The quality of research regarding perforator mapping prior to DIEP flap breast reconstruction is poor and although preoperative angiography appears to save operative time, reduce morbidity and confer cost savings, higher quality research is needed. Registration: PROSPERO ID CRD42017065012

Buried Versus Exposed Kirschner Wires Following Fixation of Hand Fractures: l Clinician and Patient Surveys

Background: Fractures of the metacarpals and phalanges are common. 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. The aim of study was to investigate current clinical practice, understand the key factors influencing clinician decision-making, and explore patient preferences to inform the design of a randomized clinical trial. Methods: The steering group developed surveys for hand surgeons, hand therapists, and patients. Following piloting, they were distributed across the United Kingdom hand surgery units using the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network. Results: A total of 423 hand surgeons, 187 hand therapists, and 187 patients completed the surveys. Plastic surgeons and junior surgical trainees preferred to leave K-wires not buried. Ease of removal correlated with a decision to leave wires exposed, whereas perceived risk of infection correlated with burying wires. Cost did not affect the decision. Hand therapists were primarily concerned about infection and patient-related outcomes. Patients were most concerned about wire-related problems and pain. Conclusion: This national survey provides a new understanding of the use of K-wires to manage hand fractures in the United Kingdom. A number of nonevidence-based factors seem to influence the decision to bury or leave K-wires exposed. The choice has important clinical and health economic implications that justify a randomized controlled trial

Outcome measurement in plastic surgery

Outcome measurement in plastic surgery is often surgeon-centred, and clinician-derived. Greater emphasis is being placed on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in which the patients' perspective is measured directly from them. Numerous patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed in a range of fields, with a number of good quality PROMs in plastic surgery. They can be deployed to support diagnosis, disease severity determination, referral pathways, treatment decision-making, post-operative care and in determining cost-effectiveness. In order to understand the impact of disease and health interventions, appropriate PROMs are a logical choice in plastic surgery, where many conditions involve detriment of function or cosmesis. PROMS can be classified as disease-specific, domain-specific, dimension-specific, population-specific and generic. Choosing the correct outcome and measure can be nebulous. The two most important considerations are: is it suitable for the intended purpose? And how valid is it? Measurement that combines being patient-centred and aligning with clinicians' understanding is achievable, and can be studied scientifically. Rational design of new PROMs and considered choice of measures is critical in clinical practice and research. There are a number of tools that can be employed to assess the quality of PROMs that are outlined in this overview. Clinicians should consider the quality of measures both in their own practice and when critically appraising evidence. This overview of outcome measurement in plastic surgery provides a tool set enabling plastic surgeons to understand, implement and analyse outcome measures across clinical and academic practice

Outcome measurement in plastic surgery

Outcome measurement in plastic surgery is often surgeon-centred, and clinician-derived. Greater emphasis is being placed on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in which the patients' perspective is measured directly from them. Numerous patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed in a range of fields, with a number of good quality PROMs in plastic surgery. They can be deployed to support diagnosis, disease severity determination, referral pathways, treatment decision-making, post-operative care and in determining cost-effectiveness. In order to understand the impact of disease and health interventions, appropriate PROMs are a logical choice in plastic surgery, where many conditions involve detriment of function or cosmesis. PROMS can be classified as disease-specific, domain-specific, dimension-specific, population-specific and generic. Choosing the correct outcome and measure can be nebulous. The two most important considerations are: is it suitable for the intended purpose? And how valid is it? Measurement that combines being patient-centred and aligning with clinicians' understanding is achievable, and can be studied scientifically. Rational design of new PROMs and considered choice of measures is critical in clinical practice and research. There are a number of tools that can be employed to assess the quality of PROMs that are outlined in this overview. Clinicians should consider the quality of measures both in their own practice and when critically appraising evidence. This overview of outcome measurement in plastic surgery provides a tool set enabling plastic surgeons to understand, implement and analyse outcome measures across clinical and academic practice

An unusual suspect causing behavioural problems and pituitary failure in a child

A 9-year-old boy presented with feeding and behavioural problems and was diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. By age 11 he was becoming increasingly disinhibited and was refusing almost all oral food intake. Believing the cause to be psychogenic, he was placed in an inpatient eating disorder facility. After 3 days of continuous vomiting and minimal intake, he was admitted back to hospital for further investigations. A hypovolaemic hypernatraemia prompted an MRI brain scan, revealing several tumour masses with suprasellar and pituitary involvement. Histological investigation revealed primary, non-malignant germ-cell tumours. The tumours were treated with craniopharyngeal radiotherapy and permanent pituitary hormone replacement. </p