Conectar
The efficacy of episiotomy, particularly the angle of incision in mediolateral episiotomies, remains a significant area of inquiry in obstetrics. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of low-angle mediolateral episiotomy on perineal wound healing and pain outcomes in women undergoing vaginal childbirth. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted using the PICO framework. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving low-angle mediolateral episiotomies. Comprehensive literature searches were performed across major electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. Data extraction and quality assessments were meticulously carried out by independent reviewers, employing the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. A total of 1246 articles were initially identified, with 8 articles meeting the strict inclusion criteria for the final analysis. The meta-analysis revealed significant heterogeneity among studies regarding postoperative pain (p < 0.0001, I 2 = 77.5%), and employed a random-effects model. Results showed that low-angle episiotomies significantly reduced postoperative pain (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17–0.42, p < 0.001), and increased first-degree healing rates (OR = 2.95, 95% CI: 2.20–3.96, p < 0.001) compared to traditional angles. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of these findings, and no significant publication bias was detected. The analysis suggests that low-angle episiotomies can potentially reduce postoperative perineal pain and enhance wound healing. However, the limited number and varying quality of the included studies warrant cautious interpretation of these results. Further well-designed studies are needed to corroborate these findings and guide clinical practice.
We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) on post-extraction wound healing and pain, with a view to providing a reliable basis for the selection of treatment options in clinical practice. A computerised search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang databases for studies on the effect of PRF on post-extraction wound healing and pain compared with natural healing (control group) was performed from the time of creation of the respective databases to July 2023. Literature screening, data extraction and quality assessment were done independently by two authors. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. Fourteen studies with a total of 508 patients were finally included. Meta-analysis showed that the use of PRF relieved patients' wound pain (standardised mean differences [SMDs]: −1.78, 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: −2.61 to −0.94, p < 0.001), promoted soft tissue healing of extraction wounds (SMD: 1.09, 95% CIs: 0.26–1.91, p = 0.010) and also reduced the incidence of alveolar osteitis (AO) in patients after tooth extraction (2.42% vs. 10.14%, odds ratio: 0.27, 95% CIs: 0.11–0.65, p = 0.004). Current clinical evidence suggests that the use of PRFs can reduce patients' postoperative wound pain, promote soft tissue healing of extraction wounds and reduce the incidence of postoperative AO compared with natural healing. However, due to limitations in the number and quality of studies, large-scale randomised controlled trials are still needed to validate the results of this study in the future.
FreshRSS 