Introduction
Methods
Eligibility criteria
Search strategy
Data extraction
Data synthesis and analysis
Certainty of evidence
Risk of bias
Results
Search results
Study characteristics
Author (Year) | Study Design (Country) | Follow-Upa | Participants | Interventions | Outcome Measures |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ahsan (2019) [27] | RCT (Pakistan) | 3 months | 100 participants; Mean age 26.31 + 8.74; 45/46 M/F; Severity not reported | A: Chemical matrixectomy with phenol (n = 50) | 1. Healing time at 48 h, week 1, 4 and 12 up to 3 months. 2. Wound infection and discharge 3. Pain (no pain, mild, moderate, severe) 4. Recurrence up to 3 months |
B: Chemical matrixectomy with trichloroacetic acid (n = 50) | |||||
Akkus (2018) [28] | RCT (Turkey) | 12 months | 60 participants (75 procedures); Mean age 30 – 31.7; 27/23 M/F; Stage I (n = 32), Stage II (n = 19), Stage III (n = 24) | A: Chemical matrixectomy with NaOH (n = 30) | 1. Recurrences at 12 months 2. Healing time assessed at day 3, Week 1, Month 1, 6, and 12 3. Pain (pain severity- mild, moderate or severe) 4. Operation time 5. Post-operative drainage 6. QOL (Dermatologic Life Quality Index) |
B: Wedge resection (n = 30) | |||||
AlGhamdi (2014) [29] | RCT (Saudi Arabia) | 6 months | 53 participants; Mean age 47.7 + 1.3 (range 10–60 years); 46/7 M/F; Stage II and III | A: Lateral nail avulsion with phenol (n = 30) | 1. Symptomatic regrowth 1, 3 and 6 months 2. Healing time 1, 3 and 6 months 3. Significant complications including infection 4. Pain at baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months 5. Participant satisfaction 6. Drainage 7. Shoe-wear discomfort 8. Overall success rate |
B: Nail tube splinting (n = 23) | |||||
Altinyazar (2010) [30] | RCT (Turkey) | 18 months | 44 participants; Mean 28.5–32.8; 21/23 M/F; All stage III | A: Plain lidocaine (n = 22) | 1. Recurrence at 18 months 2. Healing time 3. Pain 4. Drainage |
B: Lidocaine with epinephrine (n = 22) | |||||
Alvarez-Jimenez (2011) [31] | RCT; Double- Blinded (Spain) | 12 months | 51 participants (152 procedures); Mean age 34.05 + 19.23; 18/33 M/F; Stage I or IIa | A: Phenol and curettage (n = 73 nail folds) | 1. Recurrence at 12 months 2. Healing time over 1 months (digital photo) 3. Infection 4. Bleeding over 48 h 5. Pain 2 days post-surgery (VAS) |
B: Phenol (n = 79 nail folds) | |||||
Anderson (1990) [32] | RCT (UK) | 12 months | 31 participants; Age range 15–73 years); 19/11 M/F; Severity not reported | A: Nail bed excision (n = 17) | 1. Recurrence at 12 months 2. Post operative infection at 2 weeks 3. Participant satisfaction at 2 weeks and 12 months 4. Previous operations and relation to recurrence |
B: Combination of nail bed phenolisation and excision (n = 14) | |||||
Andre (2018) [33] | RCT; Double- Blinded (France) | 4 months | 84 participants (96 toenails); Age range 14–88 years; 41/40 M/F; Severity not reported | A: Nail avulsion and phenol (n = 46 toenails) | 1. Recurrence at 4 months 2. Inflammation at day 2, week 2, 4 and month 4 3. Pain at 34 days post-surgery (VAS) 4. Presence of oozing 5. Postoperative morbidity |
B: Nails avulsion and trichloroacetic acid (n = 50 toenials) | |||||
Awad (2020) [34] | RCT (Saudi Arabia) | 6 months | 200 participants; Mean age 26.45 (range 16–52 years); 136/64 M/F; Stage I (n = 66), Stage II (n = 38), Stage III (n = 96) | A: Partial nail matrixectomy with electrocautery (n = 100) | 1. Recurrence at 1 and 6 months 2. Healing time assessed at 3 and 7 days, 1 and 6 months 3. Infection assessed at 3 and 7 days 4. Pain assessed at day 3 and 7 (VAS) 5. Participant satisfaction at 1 and 6 months |
B: Partial nail matrixectomy (n = 100) | |||||
Bos (2007) [35] | RCT (Netherlands) | 12 months | 123 participants; Age range 9–73; 72/45 M/F; Severity not reported | A: Partial avulsion with excision of the matrix (n = 38) | 1. Recurrence at 1, 6 and 12 months 2. Infection at 2 days, 1 week and 1 month |
B: Partial avulsion of the matrix and application of antibiotic (n = 22) | |||||
C: Partial avulsion with application of phenol (n = 37) | |||||
D: Partial avulsion with application of phenol and antibiotic (n = 26) | |||||
Ceren (2013) [36] | RCT (Turkey) | 6 months | 120 toenails; Age range (11–65 years); 59/48 M/F; Stage I (n = 31), Stage II (n = 17), Stage III (n = 72) | A: Partial nail extraction with phenol matrixectomy (n = 63 toenails) | 1. Recurrence at 6 months 2. Haemorrhage or discharge at 6 months 3. Pain at 6 months 4. Cosmetic satisfaction at 6 months 5. Time to recovery |
B: Partial nail elevation and flexible tube (57 toenails) | |||||
Cordoba-Fernandez (2015) [37] | RCT (Spain) | 12 months | 44 participants (10 toes); Mean age 26.28 + 15.82 (range 10–64 years); 21/23 M/F; Severity not reported | A: Segmental phenolisation matrixectomy with anaesthetic digital block with epinephrine (n = 34 toes) | 1. Recurrence 2. Bleeding 3. Pain at 1-, 2- and 3-days post-op (VAS) 4. Duration of anaesthetic effect |
B: Segmental phenolisation matrixectomy with anaesthetic digital block without epinephrine (36 toes) | |||||
Gem (1990) Study 1[22] | Prospective RCT (UK) | 18 months | 219 participants; age, gender and severity not reported | A: Chemical ablation with 3-min application of 80% phenol (n = 109) | 1. Recurrence at 18 months 2. Time to become pain free 3. Relief of symptoms 4. Healing time |
B: Chemical ablation with 2-min application of 10% sodium hydroxide (n = 110) | |||||
Gem (1990) Study 2 [23] | Prospective RCT (UK) | 18 months | 203 participants; age, gender and severity not reported | A: Chemical ablation with 2-min application of 10% sodium hydroxide (n = 110) | 1. Recurrence at 18 months 2. Time to become pain free 3. Relief of symptoms 4. Healing time |
B: Chemical ablation with 1-min application of 10% sodium hydroxide (n = 93) | |||||
Gerritsma-Bleeker (2002) [38] | RCT (Netherlands) | 12 months | 60 participants (63 procedures); Mean age 22.7- 24.4; 30/33 M/F; Severity not reported | A: Partial nail extraction with phenolisation (n = 31) | 1. Relief of symptoms at 1, 3 and 12 months (VAS) 2. Recurrence at 1, 3 and 12 months 3. Pain at 2 days, 8 days, 1 month, 3 months, 12 months (VAS) 4. Participant satisfaction with scar and cosmetic result at 1, 3 and 12 months (VAS) 5. Erythema & purulent exudates 6. Morbidity 7. Time to complete recovery |
B: Partial nail extraction with matrix excision (n = 34) | |||||
Greig (1991) [39] | RCT (Scotland) | 12 months | 163 participants (204 procedures); Age range 12–77 years; 113/50 M/F; Severity not reported | A: Total avulsion (n = 81 nail edges) | 1. Recurrences at 12 months 2. Postoperative infection after 2 weeks 3. Participant satisfaction at 12 months |
B: Nail edge excision (n = 56 nail edges) | |||||
C: Nail edge excision and phenolisation (n = 67 nail edges) | |||||
Habeeb (2020) [40] | RCT (Egypt) | 6 months | 100 participants; Age range 10–35 years; 78/22 M/F; Severity not reported | A: Central toenail resection (n = 50) | 1. Relief of symptoms at 4 and 8 weeks 2. Recurrences at 6 months 3. Pain at 1,2,3 and 4 days post-op 4. Duration of technique |
B: Wedge toenail resection (n = 50) | |||||
Hamid (2021) [25] | RCT (Pakistan) | 6 months | 100 participants; Mean age 19.7–20.2; gender and severity note reported | A: Partial nail avulsion and matrixectomy with phenol (n = 50) | 1. Recurrence at 3 and 6 months 2. Serous and Purulent discharge at 7th and 14th days and at week 4 and 6 3. Pain |
B: Partial nail avulsion and matrixectomy with electrocautery (n = 50) | |||||
Issa (1998) [41] | RCT (Ireland) | 6 months | 140 participants (170 procedures); Mean age 21 (range 9–54 years); 65/22 M/F; Severity not reported | A: Wedge resection and segmental phenolisation combination treatment (n = 62) | 1. Recurrence at 6 months 2. Pain duration at 1–6 h, 6–12 h, 12–24 h, > 24 h post-op 3. Pain intensity using the linear pain analogue scale |
B: Wedge resection (n = 55) | |||||
C: Segmental phenolisation (n = 53) | |||||
Kavoussi (2020) [42] | RCT (Iran) | 24 months | 127 participants; Mean age 28.2–28.9; 68/59 M/F; Stage I (n = 7), Stage IIa (n = 40), Stage IIb (n = 51), Stage III (n = 21), Stage IV (n = 8) | A: Partial Nail Matrixectomy using CO2 laser (n = 62) | 1. Spicule formation 2. Healing time 3. Infection 4. Pain 5. Cosmetic outcome 6. Time to return to daily activity 7. Time to return to work |
B: Lateral Nail Fold Excision (LNFE) (n = 65) | |||||
Khan (2014) [43] | RCT (Pakinstan) | 6 months | 100 participants; Mean age 18 (range 14–45 years); M:F ratio = 2.3:1; Severity not reported | A: Partial Nail Avulsion + Phenol (n = 50) | 1. Recurrence or spike formation at 1 and 6 months 2. Infection at 3rd and 7th day post-op 3. Pain at 3rd and 7th day post-op (VAS) 4. Mortality |
B: Partial Nail Avulsion alone (n = 50) | |||||
Kim (2015) [44] | RCT (Korea) | 6 months | 61 participants; Mean age 20.0 – 20.3; All male; Grade 2 or 3 | A: Curettage (n = 32) | 1. Recurrences at 6 months 2. Infection at 3–5 days post-op |
B: Electrocautery (n = 29) | |||||
Korkmaz (2013) [45] | RCT (Turkey) | Mean 3.2 ± 1.2 years | 39 participants; Mean age 16.1–17.0; 28/11 M/F; Stage 2 (n = 13) or 3 (n = 26) | A: Partial matrix excision (n = 17) | 1. Recurrence 2. Infection 3. Pain (Duration of analgesic usage) 4. Return to work time |
Mean 2.1 ± 0.9 years | B: Segmental phenolisation (n = 22) | ||||
Kruijff (2008) [46] | RCT (Netherlands) | 12 months | 105 participants (109 nails procedures); Mean age 25.3 + 15.2; 73/36 M/F; Severity not reported | A: Partial nail extraction with partial matrix excision (n = 58) | 1. Recurrence at 12 months 2. Redness, exudate and post-operative bleeding at 1 week 3. Pain at 4, 12 and 26 weeks (VAS) 4. Participant satisfaction at 4 and 26 weeks (VAS) 5. Time to complete recovery 6. Relief of symptoms (VAS) |
B: Orthonyxia (n = 51) | |||||
Leahy (1990) [47] | RCT (Ireland) | 30 months | 66 participants; Mean age 24 years; 48% females; Severity not reported | A: Chemical ablation (phenol) (n = 32) | 1. Spicules or spikes regrowth at 3 months and between 16 and 30 months 2. Infection at 1 week, 3 months, and between 16 and 30 months 3. Haemorrhage at 1 week, 3 months, and between 16 and 30 months 4. Cosmetic outcome between 16 and 30 months 5. Postoperative pain (absence of pain relief) at 1 week, 3 months and between 16 and 30 months 6. Participant satisfaction at 16 and 30 months |
B: Surgical ablation (n = 34) | |||||
Misiak (2014) [48] | RCT (Poland) | 3 months | 60 participants; Mean age 41.4 + 9.95 (range 26–64 years); 32/28 M/F; Grade 3 and 4 | A: Partial nail extraction + phenolisation (n = 30) | 1. Recurrence at 1, 2 and 3 months 2. Healing time at 7 days, 14 days, 1, 2 and 3 months |
B: Partial nail extraction + electrocautery (n = 30) | |||||
Morkane (1984) [49] | RCT (New Zealand) | 14 months | 103 participants (107 procedures); Mean age 24.6 – 28.5; M/F ratio 3.5:1; Severity not reported | A: Segmental or angular phenolisation (n = 54) | 1. Regrowth at mean follow up time of 14 months 2. Pain measured 1 week post-operatively (linear analogue scale) |
B: Wedge excision (n = 53) | |||||
Muriel-Sánchez (2020) [50] | RCT (Spain) | 6 months | 34 participants (112 procedures); Mean age 34 + 18.3; 12/22 M/F; Stage I or IIa | A: Chemical matrixectomy with phenol (n = 10) | 1. Recurrence at 6 months 2. Healing time 3. Post-surgical bleeding at first dressing 4. Infection 5. Pain at 24, 48, 72 h (VAS) 6. Post-surgical inflammation |
B: “Aesthetic reconstruction” (describes partial nail ablation with wedge excision of matrix) (n = 24) | |||||
Muriel-Sánchez (2021) [51] | RCT (Spain) | 6 months | 27 participants (108 procedures); Mean age 36 + 10.7 years; 8/19 M/F; Stages I or IIa | A: Partial nail avulsion with 30 s application of phenol (n = 27 halluces [54 nail folds]) | 1. Recurrence at a minimum of 6 months 2. Healing time 3. Inflammation, bleeding & infection at 72 h then twice weekly until healed 4. Pain at 1, 2 and 3 days post-op (VAS) |
B: Partial nail avulsion with 60 s application of phenol (n = 27 halluces [54 nail folds]) | |||||
Peyvandi (2011) [52] | Prospective RCT (Iran) | 6 months | 100 participants; Mean age 27.8 (range 12–47 years); 54/46 M/F; Severity not reported | A: Winograd method (n = 50) | 1. Recurrence at 1 week, 1 and 6 months 2. Infection at 1 week, 1 and 6 months 3. Postoperative workday loss 4. Surgery duration 5. Participant satisfaction |
B: Sleeve (gutter) method (n = 50) | |||||
Reyzelman (2000) [21] | RCT (US) | Until healed | 154 participants; Mean age 20.7 + 8.6 (range 10–60 years); 91/63 M/F; Severity not reported | A: 1 week course of oral antibiotics and simultaneous phenol matrixectomy (n = 53) | 1. Healing time assessed at 3–4 days then weekly until healing occurred 2. Infection assessed at 3–4 days then weekly until healing occurred |
B: 1 week course of oral antibiotics and phenol matrixectomy 1 week later (n = 51) | |||||
C: Phenol matrixectomy without antibiotic therapy (n = 50) | |||||
Shaath (2005) [53] | RCT (UK) | 12 months | 83 participants; Mean age 37.2 – 39.4 years; 53/30 M/F; Severity not reported | A: Zadik’s procedure (n = 38) | 1. Symptomatic regrowth 2. Pain at 3 & 6 weeks (VAS) 3. Return to shoe wear 4. Return to normal activity 5. Number of dressings |
B: Chemical ablation with Sodium Hydroxide (n = 45) | |||||
Tatlican (2009) [20] | RCT (Turkey) | 24 months | 110 participants (148 procedures); Mean age 31.6–32.7 years. 54/56 M/F; Grade 2 (n = 65) or 3 (n = 83) ingrowing nail | A: Partial nail avulsion with 1 min phenol cauterisation (n = 37) | 1. Recurrence at 6-month intervals for 24 months 2. Healing time. Examined on alternate days until healing achieved 3. Pain at 2nd, 10th, 16th, 24th & 30th days of follow up 4. Drainage and tissue damage at 2nd, 10th, 16th, 24th & 30th days of follow up |
B: Partial nail avulsion with 2-min phenol cauterisation (n = 36) | |||||
C: Partial nail avulsion with 3-min phenol cauterisation (n = 37) | |||||
Uygur (2016) [54] | Prospective RCT (Turkey) | 6 months | 128 participants; Mean age 22.8 (range 12–48 years); 83/41 M/F; Heifetz stage I (n = 28, 23%), Stage I (n = 73, 58%), Stage III (n = 23, 18%) | A: Winograd procedure and new suturing technique (n = 64) | 1. Recurrence at 2 weeks, 1 and 6 months 2. Satisfaction at suture removal, 1 and 6 months 3. Time elapsed before shoes could be worn at 2 weeks, 1 and 6 months 4. Return to work/school |
B: Winograd procedure and traditional suturing technique (n = 64) | |||||
Van der Ham (1990) [55] | RCT (Netherlands) | 14 months | 249 participants; Age range 3–97 years; 158/ 91 M/F; Severity not reported | A: Wedge excision (n = 124) | 1. Analgesic required after 7 days and weekly until healed for 14 months 2. Sick leave 3. Recurrence for 14 months 4. Re-operation 5. Nail Spikes 6. Healing time 7. Time required off work |
B: Segmental phenol cauterisation (n = 125) | |||||
Varma (1983) [26] | RCT (UK) | 6 months | 67 participants; Age, gender and severity not reported | A: Surgical wedge excision (n = 35) | 1. Symptomatic recurrence at 3 and 6 months 2. Healing time at 1 week, 1 and 3 months |
B: Phenol wedge cauterisation (n = 28) | |||||
Wallace (1979) [24] | Prospective RCT (UK) | 15 months | 68 participants; Age range 10 to 73 years; gender and severity not reported | A: Gutter treatment (n = 32) | 1. Number of successes/Number of failures 2. Number having no further operation/ Number undergoing reoperation 3. Pain after 1 day |
B: Wedge resection (n = 36) |
Interventions
Recurrence
Ahsan (2019) [27] | No definition provided |
Akkus (2018) [28] | No definition provided |
AlGhamdi (2014) [29] | No definition provided |
Altinyazar (2010) [30] | Recurrence was defined as occurrence of any clinical sign of regrowth of the treated nail edge, such as pain, discomfort, erythema, or drainage. Spicule formation, which shows the inadequate destruction of the germinal matrix, was also accepted as recurrence |
Alvarez-Jimenez (2011) [31] | Recurrence rate was evaluated as growth of the released nail (or of a piece of the released nail) even though that recurrent nail might be asymptomatic |
Anderson (1990) [32] | Recurrence was defined as any evidence of nail growth |
Andre (2018) [33] | Recurrence was defined as the presence of a nail spicule or any sign of ingrowing nail |
Awad (2020) [34] | No definition provided |
Bos (2007) [35] | No definition applied at the study start; applied definition to see the impact on study results “If regrowth or spike formation at the site of the removed part of the nail was also considered as recurrence, together with recurrence of IGTN, the effect of antibiotics was not significant (P = 0·876) and phenolization remained significantly better than matrix excision (P < 0·001). The increase in number of recurrences when this definition was applied was mainly due to the significantly higher chance of nail regrowth when matrix excision was used (P = 0·019) |
Ceren (2013) [36] | No definition provided |
Cordoba-Fernandez (2015) [37] | Recurrence rate–was considered present when there was symptomatic regrowth (including nail spicules/inclusion cysts) or asymptomatic nail spikes after a minimum post-operative follow-up of 1 year |
Gem (1990) a [22] | Unclear in their reporting of recurrence recording the ‘number symptom-free’ |
Gem (1990) b [23] | Unclear in their reporting of recurrence recording the ‘number symptom-free’ |
Gerritsma-Bleeker (2002) [38] | Recurrence was defined as evidence of ingrowth of the nail edge or spicule formation |
Greig (1991) [39] | Recurrence was defined as evidence of ingrowth of the nail edge or spicule formation |
Habeeb (2020) [40] | No definition provided |
Hamid (2021) [25] | No definition provided |
Issa (1998) [41] | Recurrence was defined by the presence of nail growth on the affected side, whether or not symptomatic, i.e. an asymptomatic nail spike was considered a recurrence |
Kavoussi (2020) [42] | No definition provided |
Khan (2014) [43] | No definition provided |
Kim (2015) [44] | No definition provided |
Korkmaz (2013) [45] | No definition provided |
Kruijff (2008) [46] | Recurrence was defined as evidence of ingrowth of the nail edge or spicule formation |
Leahy (1990) [47] | Number of spicules or spiked regrowth’s of nail occurring at the nail bed edge, remote from the main nail |
Misiak (2014) [48] | No definition provided |
Morkane (1984) [49] | Number of nail spikes out of total procedures |
Muriel-Sánchez (2020) [50] | To measure recurrence, a relapse of clinical reappearance during a follow-up of a minimum of six months was considered. Likewise, the growth of an asymptomatic nail spicule was regarded as a post-operatory sequel and not as a recurrence |
Muriel-Sánchez (2021) [51] | The growth of asymptomatic nail spicule was considered a sequel and not a recurrence |
Peyvandi (2011) [52] | No definition provided |
Shaath (2005) [53] | No definition provided |
Tatlican (2009) [20] | Recurrence was defined as the formation of a new nail particule and the presence of any sign related with the re-ingrowth of the operated nail such as pain, erythema or spicule formation |
Uygur (2016) [54] | No definition applied at the study start; applied definition to see the impact on study results “Had recurrence been defined as a need for repeat surgery, the recurrence rate of the group treated using our new technique would be zero” |
Van der Ham (1990) [55] | No definition provided |
Varma (1983) [26] | Symptomatic recurrence was defined as recurrence of a nail spike associated with persistent discomfort, pain and/or inflammation over a period of at least 8 weeks, for which the patient opted to have another operation |
Wallace (1979) [24] | Unclear in their reporting of recurrence recording the ‘number of successes/number of failures’ |