Skip to main content
Download PDF

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of surgical treatments for ingrown toenails part II: healing time, post-operative complications, pain, and participant satisfaction

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research volume 16, Article number: 55 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

When performing nail surgery, clinicians must choose from a multitude of procedures and variations within each procedure. Much has been published to guide this decision making, but there are a lack of up to date robust systematic reviews to assess the totality of this evidence.

Methods

Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and CENTRAL) and two registers (Clinicaltrials.gov and ISRCTN) were searched to January 2022 for randomised trials evaluating the effects of a surgical intervention(s) for ingrown toenails. Two independent reviewers screened records, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. Data on co-primary outcomes of symptom relief and symptomatic regrowth were presented in our first paper. This paper presents data for the secondary outcomes and further discussion.

Results

Of 3,928 records identified, 36 randomised trials were included in the systematic review. Healing time appears to be reduced with shorter application of phenol. A reduced healing time was also apparent was with the addition of curettage, although this may also increase the risk of post-operative bleeding and pain. Post operative bleeding was also reportedly lower in people who received local anaesthetic with epinephrine but no tourniquet. Use of phenol with nail bed excision may decrease the risk of infection. Lower pain scores were reported when using partial matrixectomy and surgical interventions with phenol. Shorter duration of pain was reported with phenolisation and wedge resection. Participant satisfaction was high overall.

Conclusion

This second paper reports secondary outcomes from a robust systematic review of randomised trials on surgical treatment of ingrown toenails. Despite the large volume of clinical trials conducted on the topic, few clinical conclusions can be drawn due to the poor quality of these studies. Further high-quality clinical trials are needed to answer fundamental questions in the surgical treatment of ingrown toenails.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Ingrown toenails (onychocryptoses) are one of the most common nail pathologies. It has been suggested that they have a prevalence of between 2.5% and 5% with a bimodal distribution of age with peaks at 15 and 50 years [1, 2]. Patients typically present with pain as their main symptom and this can often cause difficulty with footwear and walking [3]. As the nail plate pierces the periungual tissue, it leads to local inflammation and frequently secondary bacterial infection with associated serosanguinous or purulent discharge [3]. Over time, this can become chronic as the nail plate continues to grow causing hypergranulation tissue to proliferate and protrude from the nail sulcus [4].

Mild early cases can often be treated with conservative interventions, but many cases require some form of nail surgery. Indeed, nail surgery is so frequently performed that it has been identified as the tenth most common procedure performed by podiatrists [5]. Although there are multiple procedures and options on how to perform such surgery, it typically aims to remove the problem part of the nail and destroy the underlying matrix to avoid recurrence [6,7,8]. As with many interventions in healthcare, nail surgery can be considered a complex intervention as it contains multiple interacting components that often need tailoring to the needs of individual patients [9,10,11]. When deciding on each of these components for a given patient, clinicians must make multiple decisions based on the available evidence.

A large number of papers have been published on the treatment of ingrown toenails including many narrative or scoping reviews, but with the most recent Cochrane review now over a decade old, there is a lack of current high quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses [7, 12,13,14]. The authors therefore aimed to systematically search and synthesise the literature relating to the effectiveness/efficacy of surgical methods for treating ingrown toenails. Given the volume of studies and data on this topic, the review has been split into two parts with the linked paper reporting in detail the results from the co-primary outcomes of recurrence and relief of symptoms[15]. This paper presents the secondary outcomes: healing time, post-operative complications (infection and haemorrhage), pain of operation/ post-operative pain and participant satisfaction.

Methods

The conduct and reporting of this review were guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [16] and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [17]. It was prospectively registered [PROSPERO: CRD42021251938].

Eligibility criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included if they evaluated the effects of a surgical intervention(s) for ingrown toenails with a follow-up period of at least one month. Our inclusion criteria were broad, and we did not restrict eligibility based on the trial setting, age, or gender of participants. Studies were restricted to English, pertaining to human participants, and must have reported one of the pre-defined outcomes for inclusion. Our co-primary outcomes were relief of symptoms, and symptomatic regrowth (nail spicules/nail spikes), which are reported elsewhere [15]. Secondary outcomes: healing time, post-operative complications (e.g., infection and haemorrhage), pain of operation, post-operative pain (duration and intensity) and participant satisfaction are reported herein.

Search strategy

We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to January 2022 using a multifaceted search strategy (Supplementary File 1). We also searched trial registers (International Clinical Trials Registry and Clinicaltrials.gov) and forward and backward citations of included studies.

Results were exported into Rayyan for de-duplication. Title, abstract, and full text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers and any discrepancies were assessed by a third reviewer and resolved by consensus.

Data extraction

Two reviewers independently extracted data using a modified Cochrane data extraction form. Disagreements were resolved through consensus with a third author. Data extracted included: (a) general information such as author(s), title, journal and study funding; (b) trial characteristics such as study aim and objectives, study design, unit of allocation and ethical approvals; (c) participant characteristics such as setting, inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample size (number of participants and nail folds), age, gender, baseline imbalances, severity of ingrown toenails; (d) intervention and comparison group(s); (e) outcome measures including as time points, unit of measurement, outcome definition, data at baseline/follow-up and statistical methods. Where data were missing or unclear, clarification was sought via email to the corresponding author(s). At least one follow-up email was sent if a response was not forthcoming.

Risk of bias

The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) was used to evaluate risk of bias [18].

Data synthesis and analysis

Despite, intending to conduct meta-analyses on these secondary outcomes, unfortunately this was not possible due to a combination of studies not conducting intention to treat analysis, poor reporting, heterogeneity in the intervention and timepoints at which the outcomes were captured, and unavailability of data. Thus, these secondary outcomes could only be reported narratively, and conclusions are therefore limited.

Results

The PRISMA flow chart (Supplementary File 2), study characteristics (Supplementary Table 1) and interventions are detailed in paper 1[15].

Healing time

Time to healing was assessed in 14 studies [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] (Table 1). The definition of healing varied between studies (Table 2) and was only provided in seven. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 24 months, though the exact timepoint each outcome was captured was not always clear. Findings suggest shorter application time for chemical matrixectomy with phenol resulted in a faster healing time [26, 28], as did the addition of curettage [32].

Table 1 Outcome measure: Healing Time (n = 14)
Full size table
Table 2 Healing definitions
Full size table

Post-operative complications (Infection & Haemorrhage)

Twenty studies [20, 21, 23, 25,26,27, 32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45] (Table 3) assessed the post-operative complications of infection and/or haemorrhage. Follow-up times varied across the studies, ranging from just 48 h for haemorrhage [32], to 3 to 5 days for infection [45] and some up to 6 months [42] and beyond. It was also often unclear which outcome had been collected at which timepoint, and measurement techniques were often unclear or poorly reported. Of the 20 studies, only 2 studies [33, 36] mention the use of bacterial cultures to identify infective organisms and 2 studies [25, 44] reported measuring post-operative bleeding using a scale of mild, moderate or abundant on assessment of the dressing.

Table 3 Outcome measure: Post-operative complications (infection and haemorrhage) (n = 20)
Full size table

Few studies reported any statistically significant findings. Redness and exudate was found to be reduced when comparing nail bracing to matrix excision [46] and the use of phenol over trichloroacetic acid appeared to reduce oozing at week two and four [34]. The addition of curettage to chemical matrixectomy [32] increased bleeding but showed lower infection rates. Two studies [33, 38] found the addition of phenol led to significantly lower infection rates.

Pain of operation / Post-operative pain

Post-operative pain was reported in 25 studies [19,20,21,22,23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 37,38,39,40,41, 43, 44, 46,47,48,49,50,51] (Table 4) and was the second most frequently reported outcome after recurrence. Ten studies [21, 25, 26, 32, 34, 38, 40, 44, 47, 50] measured pain using a Visual Analogue Score (VAS), two studies used a Linear Analogue Score [49, 52], three studies classified pain as mild, moderate or severe [19, 39, 43] and one study assessed analgesic usage [48]. The remaining studies were unclear. Follow-up times varied throughout the studies and ranged from 2 days to 12 months. Few studies reported any significant findings for this outcome. Nail bracing was found to have higher pain levels than matrix excision at 4 and 26 weeks but no difference at 12 weeks [46]. Two studies [29, 52] found pain duration to be shorter with chemical matrixectomy than excision.

Table 4 Outcome measure: Pain of operation / Post-operative pain (n = 25)
Full size table

Participant satisfaction

Participant satisfaction was reported in nine studies [20, 21, 33, 36, 40,41,42, 47, 53] (Table 5). All studies reported improvements in satisfaction, although how that was defined and measured was generally unclear. Two studies [40, 47] measured this using a VAS of 0–10 and only three studies [40, 47, 51] undertook statistical analysis. ‘Satisfaction with scar’ was found to be higher with chemical matrixectomy than matrix excision [47] at 1 month but this difference was no longer significant by 3 and 12 months. The same study also measured ‘satisfaction with cosmetic results’ and found no significant difference at any of the timepoints. In a comparison of nail bracing to matrix excision [40], satisfaction was higher in the matrix excision group at 4 and 26 weeks.

Table 5 Outcome measure: Participant Satisfaction (n = 9)
Full size table

Risk of bias

We used the used the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and assessed six domains for each study. No study was rated as low risk, for reasons such as not or providing information surrounding the randomisation process, not including all participants in the final analysis and failing to provide information on blinding of participants or the outcome assessor. Risk of bias summaries are presented in Fig. 1 and risk of bias table in Supplementary Table 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Risk of bias summary plot: RoB 2.0 tool

Full size image

Discussion

This is the second paper from this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled rials of surgical treatments for ingrown toenails. The first reported the methods used in the review and reported results from the primary outcomes of recurrence and relief of symptoms [15]. This second paper focusses on the secondary outcomes of healing time, postoperative complications (e.g., infection and haemorrhage), postoperative pain (duration and intensity) and participant satisfaction. Although a large number of trials were identified for inclusion in the review, the poor reporting, heterogeneity of the studies and differences in outcome measures/timepoints, meant a meta-analysis was not possible on these secondary outcomes.

Perhaps the most obvious clinical finding from this, is the lack of robust clinical conclusions that can be drawn from all these studies. Possibly the clearest pattern to emerge was around the use of phenol. Shorter application of phenol during the chemical matrixectomy was linked to shorter time to healing in two studies, but application duration appeared to have little effect on post operative complications [26, 28]. Although this may suggest that clinicians should use a shorter duration of phenol, this must be balanced against the meta-analysis in the first paper which indicate higher rates of regrowth are associated with shorter application times[15]. The optimal balance of effectiveness and sequalae is yet to be determined and clinicians may opt to vary application times to meet the needs of individual patients.

Curettage has been explored in several studies. Alvarez-Jimenez et al. reported that using a Martini bone curette following partial nail avulsion and destruction of the nail matrix with phenol reduced healing time by a third (7.5 ± 1.8 days compared to 12.4 ± 3 days, p = 0.001) [32]. They also found that it reduced rates of post operative infection, but increased post operative bleeding and as reported previously had no effect on recurrence[15]. However, with only 51 patients, and that this has not been tested in multiple trials, care must be taken not to overinterpret these findings. It is notable that whilst interventions such as curettage may benefit some outcomes such as healing, it may increase others such as post operative bleeding. A similar pattern was found with phenol where longer durations of application were linked to reduced likelihood of regrowth but increase healing times [15, 26, 28]. Clinicians and future studies should prioritise these competing risks and benefits in a way that prioritises what is important to patients.

Many studies report infection rates following nail surgery but combining these isn’t yet possible as case definitions are unclear and inconsistent. Standardised definitions of surgical site infections, and severity classifications exist and have been used in other fields of surgical research, but they have not yet been validated and applied to nail surgery [54,55,56]. Despite the clear interest in post operative infection as an outcome, only one trial explored the use of oral antibiotics and found no evidence that they reduced the rate of post operative infection. However, with only 50 to 53 participants per group, it would only have been powered to identify a large effect.

Other post operative sequalae, such as haemorrhage also had unclear case definitions and were poorly reported. With some studies only capturing data for some outcomes up to 48 h post procedure [32], there is not enough time to meaningfully assess the effect of an intervention on complication rates. Perhaps more worryingly, there was a lack of information on the reporting of adverse events in general despite clear legal and governance frameworks being in place for many years.

Another frequently captured outcome was patient satisfaction. This is a widely used, but poorly defined concept in healthcare and although definitions vary, they generally centre on satisfaction being the extent to which an individual’s experience meets their expectations [57,58,59]. However, patient expectations are not a stable trait and change over time as has been recognised elsewhere [60]. Evidence from randomised trials have shown that patient expectations can be deliberately modified, and that patient expectations can be guided towards what clinicians consider achievable [60, 61]. Modification of patient’s expectations would in turn influence their final level of satisfaction, which brings into question its value as a measure of treatment effectiveness.

Given the limitations of the studies identified in this review, it’s clear that many fundamental questions remain unanswered around the surgical treatment of ingrown toenails: Is destruction of the nail matrix always necessary? What is the optimal technique to prevent symptomatic regrowth? How should patients be reviewed and monitored post-operatively? Are different procedures more appropriate for subgroups of patients? Further high-quality collaborative trials are needed to answer these questions.

Findings from this paper should be interpreted in line with the assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence reported in the first paper [15]. All studies included in the review were assessed as having either high risk or having some concerns about bias when assessed with the Cochrane ROB 2.0 tool. Similarly, none of the comparisons were considered to have high certainty when assessed with the GRADE system in the first paper [15]. These issues could have been averted at the protocol development stage of each trial and there is a large body of literature to guide the development and conduct of such trials [62,63,64,65,66]. Similarly, frameworks exist that would aid reporting and peer review of such studies [67, 68]. This is a clear case of what the late Prof Doug Altman, who perhaps did more to improve healthcare research than anyone else, referred to when he said “We need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons” [69].

Conclusion

This paper reports the narrative synthesis of the secondary outcomes from a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials on surgical treatments for ingrown toenails. Despite the large volume of trials published in this area, poor design and reporting of studies prevented meta-analysis of these outcomes and limits the clinical conclusions that can be drawn. What is clear is that further robust, patient centred, clinical trials are urgently needed to fill the vacuum of quality evidence around such a commonly performed procedure.

Availability of data and materials

All data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CENTRAL:

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

CI:

Confidence Interval

GRADE:

Grades of Research, Assessment, Development and Evaluation

ISRCTN:

International Clinical Trials Registry

MD:

Mean Differences

MESH:

Medical Subject Heading

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PROSPERO:

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

RCT:

Randomised Controlled Trial

ROB:

Risk of Bias

RR:

Risk Ratio

VAS:

Visual Analogue Scale

References

  1. Levy LA. Prevalence of chronic podiatric conditions in the US. National Health Survey 1990. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1992;82(4):221–3; doi: https://doi.org/10.7547/87507315-82-4-221.

  2. Cho SY, Kim YC, Choi JW. Epidemiology and bone-related comorbidities of ingrown nail: A nationwide population-based study. J Dermatol. 2018;45(12):1418–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1346-8138.14659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thakur V, Vinay K, Haneke E. Onychocryptosis - decrypting the controversies. Int J Dermatol. 2020;59(6):656–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijd.14769.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dawber R, Bristow I, Turner W. Text Atlas of Podiatric Dermatology. Andover: Martin Dunitz; 2002.

  5. Podiatry Co. A Demographic Evaluation of UK Podiatry Services. (2016). Accessed 11 Sep 2019.

  6. Reilly I, Blandford T. An Update for UK Podiatrists Performing Toenail Surgery on Patients Who Are Taking Antithrombotic Medications: It’s About Bleeding Time. Preprints. 2021;(2021050559 );https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202105.0559.v1.

  7. Park DH, Singh D. The management of ingrowing toenails. BMJ. 2012;344. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2089.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gohil K. Nail Surgery Guidelines. The College of Podiatry. 2019.

  9. Datta J, Petticrew M. Challenges to evaluating complex interventions: a content analysis of published papers. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:568. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-568.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be? BMJ. 2004;328(7455):1561–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1561.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2061.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Reilly I. Toenail Surgery: Indications, opions and techniques. Dermatol Nurs. 2021;20(2):10–8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Vinay K, Narayan Ravivarma V, Thakur V, Choudhary R, Narang T, Dogra S, et al. Efficacy and safety of phenol-based partial matricectomy in treatment of onychocryptosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022;36(4):526–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.17871.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Eekhof JA, Van Wijk B, Knuistingh Neven A, van der Wouden JC. Interventions for ingrowing toenails. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(4):CD001541; https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001541.pub3.

  15. Exley V, Jones K, O’Carroll G, Watson J, Backhouse M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on surgical treatments for ingrown toenails part I: recurrence and relief of symptoms. J Foot Ankle Res. 2023;16(1):35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-023-00631-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane. 2023. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

  17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71;https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

  18. Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898; doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898.

  19. Akkus A, Demirseren DD, Demirseren ME, Aktas A. The treatment of ingrown nail: Chemical matricectomy with NAOH versus wedge resection. Dermatologic Therapy. 2018;31(5); doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/dth.12677.

  20. Al Ghamdi KM, Khurram H. Nail Tube Splinting Method Versus Lateral Nail Avulsion With Phenol Matricectomy: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Clinical Trial For Ingrown Toenail Treatment. Dermatologic Surgery. 2014.

  21. Awad S, Althobaiti W, Alghamdi S, Alsubaie K, Ghedan S, Shetiwy M. Electrocautery with partial matrixectomy in comparison with partial matrixectomy alone in treatment of ingrown toenail. Egypt J Surg. 2020;39:1095–102.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gem MA, Sykes PA. Ingrowing toenails:studies of segmental chemical ablation. Br J Clin Pract. 1990;44:562–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kavoussi H, Ebrahimi A, Rezaei M, Salimi E, Rashidian H, Kavoussi R. A comparison of effectiveness and cosmetic outcome of two methods for ingrown toenail: partial nail matricectomy using CO2 laser versus lateral nail fold excision. Acta Dermatovenerologica Alpina Pannonica et Adriatica. 2020;29(2); https://doi.org/10.15570/actaapa.2020.12.

  24. Misiak P, Terlecki A, Rzepkowska-Misiak B, Wcislo S, Brocki M. Comparison of effectiveness of electrocautery and phenol application in partial matricectomy after partial nail extractio in the treatment of ingrown nails. Polish J Surg. 2014;80:89–93.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Muriel-Sánchez JM, Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo R, Montaño-Jiménez P, Coheña-Jiménez M. The Treatment of Ingrown Nail: Chemical Matricectomy With Phenol Versus Aesthetic Reconstruction. A Single Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial. J Clin Med. 2020;9(3);https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030845.

  26. Muriel-Sánchez JM, Coheña-Jiménez M, Montaño-Jiménez P. Effect of Phenol Application Time in the Treatment of Onychocryptosis: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(19); https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910478.

  27. Reyzelman AM, Trombello KA, Vayser DJ, Armstrong DG, Harkless LB. Are antibiotics necessary in the treatment of locally infected ingrown toenails? Arch Fam Med. 2000;9(9):930–2. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfami.9.9.930.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tatlican S, Yamangokturk B, Eren C, Eskioglu F, Adiyaman S. Comparison of phenol applications of different durations for the cauterization of the germinal matrix: an efficacy and safety study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2009;43(4):298–302. https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2009.298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. van der Ham AC, Hackeng CA, Yo TI. The treatment of ingrowing toenails. A randomised comparison of wedge excision and phenol cauterisation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72(3):507–9;https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.72B3.2341458.

  30. Varma JS, Kinninmonth AW, Hamer-Hodges DW. Surgical wedge excision versus phenol wedge cauterisation for ingrowing toenail. A controlled study. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1983;28(5):331–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Altinyazar HC, Demirel CB, Koca R, Hosnuter M. Digital block with and without epinephrine during chemical matricectomy with phenol. Dermatol Surg. 2010;36(10):1568–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2010.01681.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Álvarez-Jiménez J, Córdoba-Fernández A, Munuera PV. Effect of Curettage After Segmental Phenolization in the Treatment of Onychocryptosis: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(3):454–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2011.02232.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Anderson JH, Greig JD, Ireland AJ, Anderson JR. Randomized, prospective study of nail bed ablation for recurrent ingrowing toenails. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1990;35(4):240–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. André M-S, Caucanas M, André J, Richert B. Treatment of Ingrowing Toenails With Phenol 88% or Trichloroacetic Acid 100%: A Comparative, Prospective, Randomized. Double Blind Study Dermatol Surg. 2018;44(5):645–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/dss.0000000000001499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bos AM, van Tilburg MW, van Sorge AA, Klinkenbijl JH. Randomized clinical trial of surgical technique and local antibiotics for ingrowing toenail. Br J Surg. 2007;94(3):292–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5691.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Grieg JD, Anderson JH, Ireland AJ, Anderson. The surgical treatment of ingrowing toenails. J Bone Joint Surg Bri Vol. 1991;73-B(1):131–3; https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.73b1.1991748.

  37. Hamid T, Qadir MR, Nsar AR, Saleem R, Rehman A, Ali M. Outcome of Partial Nail Avulsion Followed by Matricectomy Either With Phenol (80–88%) or With Electro Cautery for Stage 2 & 3 Ingrown Toenails. Pakistan J Med Health Sci. 2021;15(8):2043–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Khan IA, Shah SF, Waqar SH, Abdullali MT, Malik Z, Zahid MA. Treatment of ingrown toe nail-comparison of phenolization after partial nail avulsion and partial nail avulsion alone. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2014;26(4):522–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Korkmaz M, Colgecen E, Erdogan Y, Bal A, Ozyurt K. Teenage patients with ingrown toenails: treatment with partial matrix excision or segmental phenolization. Indian J Dermatol. 2013;58(4):327. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.113970.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Kruijff S, van Det RJ, van der Meer GT, van den Berg ICMAE, van der Palen J, Geelkerken RH. Partial Matrix Excision or Orthonyxia for Ingrowing Toenails. J Am College Surg. 2008;206(1):148–53: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.06.296.

  41. Leahy AL, Timon CI, Craig A, Stephens RB. Ingrowing toenails: improving treatment. Surgery. 1990;107(5):566–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Peyvandi H, Robati RM, Yegane R-A, Hajinasrollah E, Toossi P, Peyvandi A-A, et al. Comparison of Two Surgical Methods (Winograd and Sleeve Method) in the Treatment of Ingrown Toenail. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37(3):331–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2011.01880.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ahsan MF, Irshad A, Asif M, Zafar M, Shah SA. Comparison of Trichloroacetic acid and Phenol application after partial nail extraction in the treatment of ingrown toe nails. Pakistani J Med Health Sci. 2019;13(4):982–4.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Córdoba-Fernández A, Rodríguez-Delgado FJ. Anaesthetic digital block with epinephrine vs. tourniquet in ingrown toenail surgery: a clinical trial on efficacy. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(5):985–90;https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.12746.

  45. Kim M, Song I-G, Kim HJ. Partial removal of nail matrix in the treatment of ingrown nails. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2014;14(2):192–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534734614550685.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kruijff S, van Det RJ, van der Meer GT, van den Berg IC, van der Palen J, Geelkerken RH. Partial matrix excision or orthonyxia for ingrowing toenails. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(1):148–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.06.296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Gerritsma-Bleeker CL, Klaase JM, Geelkerken RH, Hermans J, van Det RJ. Partial matrix excision or segmental phenolization for ingrowing toenails. Arch Surg. 2002;137(3):320–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.137.3.320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Habeeb TAAM, Elaidy MM, Mawla WA. Altering toenail biomechanic in managing ingrown toenail. Randomized controlled study. International Journal of Surgery Open. 2020;24:96–9;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijso.2020.03.008.

  49. Morkane AJ, Robertson RW, Inglis GS. Segmental phenolization of ingrowing toenails: a randomized controlled study. Br J Surg. 1984;71(7):526–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800710718.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Shaath N, Shea J, Whiteman I, Zarugh A. A prospective randomized comparison of the Zadik procedure and chemical ablation in the treatment of ingrown toenails. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(5):401–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070502600511.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ceren E, Gokdemir G, Arikan Y, Purisa S. Comparison of phenol matricectomy and nail-splinting with a flexible tube for the treatment of ingrown toenails. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39(8):1264–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsu.12230.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Issa M, Tanner W. Approach to ingrowing toenails: the wedge resection/segmental phenolization combination treatment. J Bri Surg. 1988;75(2):181–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Uygur E, Çarkçi E, Şenel A, Kemah B, Turhan Y. A new and simple suturing technique applied after surgery to correct ingrown toenails may improve clinical outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Surg. 2016;34:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.08.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Berrios-Torres SI, Umscheid CA, Bratzler DW, Leas B, Stone EC, Kelz RR, et al. Centers for disease control and prevention guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection, 2017. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(8):784–91. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36(5):309–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bruce J, Knight R, Parsons N, Betteridge R, Verdon A, Brown J, et al. Wound photography for evaluation of surgical site infection and wound healing after lower limb trauma.  Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(12):1802–8; https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.103b12.Bjj-2021-0447.R1.

  57. Speight J. Assessing patient satisfaction: concepts, applications, and measurement. Value in Health. 2005;8(Suppl 1):S6-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Asadi-Lari M, Tamburini M, Gray D. Patients’ needs, satisfaction, and health related quality of life: towards a comprehensive model. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Ogden J. Health Psychology: a textbook. 4th Ed edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.

  60. Clark JP, Hudak PL, Hawker GA, Coyte PC, Mahomed NN, Kreder HJ, et al. The moving target: a qualitative study of elderly patients’ decision-making regarding total joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(7):1366–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Mancuso CA, Graziano S, Briskie LM, Peterson MGE, Pellicci PM, Salvati EA, et al. Randomized trials to modify patients’ preoperative expectations of hip and knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(2):424–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Pirosca S, Shiely F, Clarke M, Treweek S. Tolerating bad health research: the continuing scandal. Trials. 2022;23(1): https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06415-5.

  63. Cook JA, Julious SA, Sones W, Hampson LV, Hewitt C, Berlin JA, et al. DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3750.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Cook JA, McCulloch P, Blazeby JM, Beard DJ, Marinac-Dabic D, Sedrakyan A. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. Bmj. 2013;346(jun18 3):f2820-f; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2820.

  65. Bilbro NA, Hirst A, Paez A, Vasey B, Pufulete M, Sedrakyan A, et al. The ideal reporting guidelines: a Delphi consensus statement stage specific recommendations for reporting the evaluation of surgical innovation. Ann Surg. 2021;273(1):82–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Zhang K, Ma Y, Wu J, Shi Q, Barchi LC, Scarci M, et al. The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique. HepatoBiliary Surg Nutr. 2023;12(4):534–44.

  67. Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF, Ravaud P, Group CN. CONSORT Statement for Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments: A 2017 Update and a CONSORT Extension for Nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(1):40–7. https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-0046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332.

  69. Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ. 1994;308(6924):283–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

MB is supported by NIHR Research Capability Funding via University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust. No specific funding was received for this work.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Victoria Exley and Katherine Jones are joint first author.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK

    Victoria Exley, Grace O’Carroll & Judith Watson

  2. Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

    Katherine Jones & Michael Backhouse

Authors
  1. Victoria Exley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Grace O’Carroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Judith Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Backhouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MRB, JW and VE conceived the review. KJ and VE screened eligible studies. KJ, VE, GO extracted, summarised data and conducted the quality review. MRB and JW acted as the third reviewer to resolve discrepancies. KJ, VE and MRB wrote the manuscript. KJ is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Backhouse.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

MB is a member of the Journal of Foot and Ankle Research Editorial Board.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. 

Full search strategy. 

Additional file 2. 

PRISMA flow diagram of literature search and study selection phases; n, number; WoS, Web Of Science; CENTRAL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; WHO ICTRP, World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; ISRCTN, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry.

Additional file 3: Supplementary Table 1.

Characteristics of included studies.

Additional file 4: Supplementary Table 2.

Risk of bias summary table.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Exley, V., Jones, K., O’Carroll, G. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of surgical treatments for ingrown toenails part II: healing time, post-operative complications, pain, and participant satisfaction. J Foot Ankle Res 16, 55 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-023-00655-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-023-00655-7

Keywords

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

ISSN: 1757-1146