Role of prolonged packing in postoperative anorectal abscess management: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prolonged packing of anorectal abscess cavities with internal dressings after incision and drainage is frequently used, but the efficacy of this practice remains controversial. Some studies highlight its use in hemostasis and preventing fistula and abscess recurrence, whereas others describe its economic burden and increase in pain. In this systematic review, we examine current evidence on the impact of packing after incision and drainage for anorectal abscesses. METHODS: The medical librarian conducted a comprehensive literature search on January 5, 2023. We conducted the meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4.1 software with a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. RESULTS: = 158, 65.6%), with a median age of 40.5 years and a follow-up of 6 months. Meta-analysis showed that prolonged wound packing was associated with delayed wound healing and increased pain, but no difference in abscess recurrence or fistula formation. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review of current evidence highlighting the impact of packing after incision and drainage for anorectal abscesses, we found that the practice is not associated with significant differences in abscess recurrence and fistula formation, but is associated with increased postoperative pain and delayed wound healing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".