RESUMEN
Surgical site infections (SSIs) pose a significant clinical challenge, with heightened risks and severe consequences for diabetic patients undergoing surgical procedures. This systematic review aims to synthesize the current evidence on effective prevention strategies for mitigating SSI risk in this vulnerable population. From inception to March 2024, we comprehensively searched multiple electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL) to identify relevant studies evaluating SSI prevention strategies in diabetic surgical patients. Our search strategy followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, utilizing a combination of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to diabetes, surgical site infections, prevention strategies, and surgical procedures. Inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses published in English. The search yielded three studies meeting the eligibility criteria, subject to data extraction and qualitative synthesis. Key findings highlighted the efficacy of interventions such as optimized perioperative glycemic control, timely prophylactic antibiotic administration, and meticulous preoperative skin antisepsis in reducing SSI rates among diabetic surgical patients. The potential for personalized prevention approaches based on individual patient factors, such as diabetes type and surgical complexity, was explored. This systematic review underscores the importance of a multifaceted, evidence-based approach to SSI prevention in diabetic surgical patients, integrating strategies like glycemic control, antibiotic prophylaxis, and preoperative skin antisepsis. Furthermore, our findings suggest the potential benefits of personalized care pathways tailored to individual patient characteristics. Implementing these interventions requires interdisciplinary collaboration, adaptation to diverse healthcare settings, and patient engagement through culturally sensitive education initiatives. This comprehensive analysis informs clinical practice, fosters patient safety, and contributes to the global efforts to enhance surgical outcomes for this high-risk population.
RESUMEN
Our goal is to conduct a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies to evaluate the efficacy of LigaSure (Valleylab, Boulder, CO) compared with Harmonic (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., Cincinnati, OH) devices in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Our search strategy, from inception until March 1, 2024, involved multiple databases, including the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science (WOS), PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We evaluated randomized clinical trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) tool and non-randomized studies using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies for Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The primary outcomes assessed were operative time, mean length of hospital stay, and the rates of intraoperative complications such as bleeding, organ injury, leakage, and hematoma formation. Additionally, we collected data on postoperative complications, including bleeding, abscess formation, leakage, fever (>38°C), and reoperation rates. Data were analyzed using random-effects models and reported as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.4 for Windows, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). Four studies, comprising two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and two retrospective cohort studies, involving a total of 692 patients, were included in the analysis. Both the operative time and length of hospital stay did not significantly differ between the LigaSure and Harmonic groups (p>0.05). The pooled analysis also revealed no significant difference between the LigaSure and Harmonic groups in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications (p>0.05). In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis found no significant statistical or clinical differences between LigaSure and Harmonic devices in terms of operative outcomes and complication rates in patients undergoing LSG.