Search

The goal of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to provide an overview of the prevalence of surgical wound infection and related factors in patients after long bone surgery. A comprehensive, systematic search was conducted in different international electronic databases, such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science and Persian electronic databases such as Iranmedex and Scientific Information Database using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as "Prevalence", "Surgical wound infection", "Surgical site infection" and "Orthopedics" from the earliest to the May 1, 2023. The appraisal tool for cross‐sectional studies (AXIS tool) evaluates the quality of the included studies. A total of 71 854 patients undergoing long bone surgery participated in 12 studies. The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in patients who underwent long bone surgery reported in the 12 studies was 3.3% (95% CI: 1.5%–7.2%; I2 = 99.39%; p < 0.001). The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in male and female patients who underwent long bone surgery was 4.6% (95% CI: 1.7%–11.7%; p < 0.001; I2 = 99.34%) and 2.6% (95% CI: 1.0%–6.3%; I2 = 98.84%; p < 0.001), respectively. The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in patients with femur surgery sites reported in nine studies was 3.7% (95% CI: 2.1–6.4%; I2 = 93.43%; p < 0.001). The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in open and close fractures was 16.4% (95% CI: 8.2%–30.2%; I2 = 95.83%; p < 0.001) and 2.9% (95% CI: 1.5%–5.5%; I2 = 96.40%; p < 0.001), respectively. The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension (HTN) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) was 4.6% (95% CI: 2.3%–8.9%; I2 = 81.50%; p < 0.001), 2.7% (95% CI: 1.2%–6.0%; I2 = 83.82%; p < 0.001) and 3.0% (95% CI: 1.4%–6.4%; I2 = 69.12%; p = 0.006), respectively. In general, the different prevalence of surgical wound infection in patients undergoing surgical treatment after long bone fracture may be caused by underlying factors (gender and co‐morbidity) and fracture‐related factors (surgery site and type of fracture). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Pain experienced during the insertion of a catheter into the arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and restless legs syndrome (RLS) are prevalent issues among Hemodialysis (HD) patients. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to consolidate the findings from randomized clinical trial (RCT) studies examining the impact of aromatherapy with lavender on the pain associated with AVF catheter insertion and RLS in HD patients., Methods: A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar search engine from inception to August 1, 2022, using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings, such as "Aromatherapy", "Lavender", "Arteriovenous fistula", "Pain", "Restless legs syndrome", and "Hemodialysis"., Results: Finally, eleven articles were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The results showed that aromatherapy reduced the average pain of catheter insertion in AVF compared to the control group (Standard Mean Difference: -1.60, 95% Confidence Interval: -2.32 to -0.87, Z=4.32, I 2 :90.3%, P<0.001). Also, aromatherapy massage reduced the average severity of RLS compared to the control group, which was statistically significant (Weighted Mean Difference: -13.21, 95% Confidence Interval: -17.50 to -8.91, Z=6.03, I 2 :93.0%, P<0.001). Also, the subgroup analysis showed that lavender in the intervention group significantly decreased the pain intensity compared to the "no intervention" group (P<0.001), yet it was not significant compared to the placebo group (P=0.12)., Conclusion: In summary, the findings indicate a notable reduction in catheter insertion pain in AVF and relief from RLS among HD patients through the use of lavender essential oil. As a result, future research is encouraged to include a comparison of lavender's effects with those of a placebo group., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.