METHOD: Six databases were searched from their date of origin to May 30, 2022 for randomised control trials using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Only four papers were selected for review as per the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study design (PICOS) criteria. Critical appraisal was carried out according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Methodology Checklist for Randomised Control Trials and was assessed for risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions. The pooled effect size was calculated using the fixed-effect model. A homogeneity of pooled effect size for the studies was also found (Cochrane Q test, p-value = 0.97 I-square = 0.0%).
RESULT: Four studies (n = 336) were included in this review. Three of the four studies reported a statistically significant reduction in time taken in healing the wound. The mean difference between the intervention (PRP group) and the control group was 13.01 days, (95% CI 12.15-13.86 days, p < 0.00001). All of the included studies also reported a statistically significant reduction in time taken to return to work/activities of daily living in the treatment group compared to the control group (MD 9.68 days, 95% CI 9.16-10.21 days, p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION: This study shows that PRP is effective in reducing healing time and is associated with a significantly shorter period taken to return to work/activities of daily living in patients post pilonidal sinus surgery, which was the primary and secondary outcome investigated in this systematic review, respectively. PRP should routinely be offered to patients undergoing excisional pilonidal sinus surgery for the aforementioned benefits.
Methods: PubMed, SCOPUS, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched systematically with restricting the languages to only English and year (January 2001 to March 2020), and studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Study quality and publication bias were assessed by using the Robvis, a software package of R statistical software.
Results: This systematic review included 32 studies (1172 patients) based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most of the studies reported significant reduction of pain by the use of the laser during TMD treatment. Two-thirds of the study (78.13%) found a better outcome comparing with conventional one. According to Robvis, 84.4% of the studies were high methodological studies with low risk of bias.
Conclusion: TMD patients suffer with continuous pain for long time even after conventional treatment. Laser therapy shows a promising outcome of pain reduction for TMD patients. Therefore, laser therapy can be recommended for the TMD patients' better outcome. This trial is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020177562).