Cochrane · systematic review · CD013439
Dressings and topical agents for the management of open wounds after surgical treatment for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus
Herrod, PJ, Doleman, B, Hardy, EJ, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
49
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
35
Included studies
NR
No studies 35 · 71.4%Ungraded 3 · 6.1%Very low 7 · 14.3%Low 4 · 8.2%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Topical negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional open wound healing
Population: adults with open wounds after surgery for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to wound healing (days) Topical negative pressure wound therapy vs conventional open wound healing | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 19 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Proportion of wounds healed at 30 days Topical negative pressure wound therapy vs conventional open wound healing | RR 3.6 [0.49, 26.54] | 1 study · 19 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of wounds healed at 6 months Topical negative pressure wound therapy vs conventional open wound healing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds healed at 12 months Topical negative pressure wound therapy vs conventional open wound healing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness (assessed using quality‐adjusted life years) Topical negative pressure wound therapy vs conventional open wound healing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pain at first postoperative dressing change (measured using a validated scale such as a visual analogue scale) Topical negative pressure wound therapy vs conventional open wound healing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects (surgical site infection or allergic reaction) Topical negative pressure wound therapy vs conventional open wound healing | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 68 participants | Ungraded |
Zinc oxide mesh versus placebo mesh
Population: adults with open wounds after surgery for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to wound healing (days) Zinc oxide mesh vs placebo mesh | no estimate extracted | 54 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of wounds healed at 30 days Zinc oxide mesh vs placebo mesh | RR 2.35 [0.49, 11.23] | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of wounds healed at 6 months Zinc oxide mesh vs placebo mesh | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds healed at 12 months Zinc oxide mesh vs placebo mesh | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness (assessed using quality‐adjusted life years) Zinc oxide mesh vs placebo mesh | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pain at first postoperative dressing change (measured using a validated scale such as a visual analogue scale) Zinc oxide mesh vs placebo mesh | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects (surgical site infection or allergic reaction) Zinc oxide mesh vs placebo mesh | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 64 participants | Ungraded |
Lietofix cream versus iodoform dressing
Population: adults with open wounds after surgery for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to wound healing (days) Lietofix cream vs iodoform dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds healed at 30 days Lietofix cream vs iodoform dressing | RR 8.06 [1.05, 61.68] | 1 study · 205 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of wounds healed at 6 months Lietofix cream vs iodoform dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds healed at 12 months Lietofix cream vs iodoform dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness (assessed using quality‐adjusted life years) Lietofix cream vs iodoform dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pain at first postoperative dressing change (measured using a validated scale such as a visual analogue scale) Lietofix cream vs iodoform dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects (surgical site infection or allergic reaction) Lietofix cream vs iodoform dressing | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 205 participants | Ungraded |
Hydrogel dressing versus wound cleaning with 10% povidone iodine
Population: adults with open wounds after surgery for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to wound healing (days) Hydrogel dressing vs wound cleaning with 10% povidone iodine | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 31 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of wounds healed at 30 days Hydrogel dressing vs wound cleaning with 10% povidone iodine | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds healed at 6 months Hydrogel dressing vs wound cleaning with 10% povidone iodine | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds healed at 12 months Hydrogel dressing vs wound cleaning with 10% povidone iodine | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness (assessed using quality‐adjusted life years) Hydrogel dressing vs wound cleaning with 10% povidone iodine | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pain at first postoperative dressing change (measured using a validated scale such as a visual analogue scale) Hydrogel dressing vs wound cleaning with 10% povidone iodine | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects (surgical site infection or allergic reaction) Hydrogel dressing vs wound cleaning with 10% povidone iodine | RR 2.13 [0.22, 21.17] | 1 study · 31 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Platelet‐rich plasma gel versus absorbent sterile cotton gauze
Population: adults with open wounds after surgery for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to wound healing (days) Platelet‐rich plasma gel vs absorbent sterile cotton gauze | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 210 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of wounds healed at 30 days Platelet‐rich plasma gel vs absorbent sterile cotton gauze | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds healed at 6 months Platelet‐rich plasma gel vs absorbent sterile cotton gauze | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds healed at 12 months Platelet‐rich plasma gel vs absorbent sterile cotton gauze | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness (assessed using quality‐adjusted life years) Platelet‐rich plasma gel vs absorbent sterile cotton gauze | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pain at first postoperative dressing change (measured using a validated scale such as a visual analogue scale) Platelet‐rich plasma gel vs absorbent sterile cotton gauze | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects (surgical site infection or allergic reaction) Platelet‐rich plasma gel vs absorbent sterile cotton gauze | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Gentamicin‐impregnated collagen sponge versus no dressing
Population: adults with open wounds after surgery for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to wound healing (days) Gentamicin‐impregnated collagen sponge vs no dressing | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 50 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of wounds healed at 30 days Gentamicin‐impregnated collagen sponge vs no dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds healed at 6 months Gentamicin‐impregnated collagen sponge vs no dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds healed at 12 months Gentamicin‐impregnated collagen sponge vs no dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness (assessed using quality‐adjusted life years) Gentamicin‐impregnated collagen sponge vs no dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pain at first postoperative dressing change (measured using a validated scale such as a visual analogue scale) Gentamicin‐impregnated collagen sponge vs no dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects (surgical site infection or allergic reaction) Gentamicin‐impregnated collagen sponge vs no dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)‐coated dressing versus alginate dressing
Population: adults with open wounds after surgery for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to wound healing (days) Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)‐coated dressing vs alginate dressing | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 246 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of wounds healed at 25 days Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)‐coated dressing vs alginate dressing | RR 0.51 [0.05, 5.53] | 1 study · 246 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of wounds healed at 6 months Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)‐coated dressing vs alginate dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds healed at 12 months Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)‐coated dressing vs alginate dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness (assessed using quality‐adjusted life years) Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)‐coated dressing vs alginate dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pain at first postoperative dressing change (measured using a validated scale such as a visual analogue scale) Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)‐coated dressing vs alginate dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects (surgical site infection or allergic reaction) Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)‐coated dressing vs alginate dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |