Table 5 Outcome measure: Participant Satisfaction (n = 9)
Author (Year) | Interventions | Timepoint | Satisfaction (mean ± SD)* | Significance (p value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative treatment (e.g., braces and gutter treatment) v’s Chemical matrixectomy (n = 2 studies) | ||||
AlGhamdi (2014) [19] | A: Lateral nail avulsion with phenol (n = 30) | Timepoint unclear | Both groups were equally satisfied with their treatment | No statistical analysis undertaken |
B: Nail tube splinting (n = 23) | Both groups were equally satisfied with their treatment | |||
Ceren (2013) [50] | A: Partial nail extraction with phenol matrixectomy (n = 63 toenails) | Pre-operative vs post-operative at 2 days, 1 and 6 months post procedure | Not reported | Cosmetic satisfaction scores were greater than preoperative scores on the second day and at 1 and 6 months in both groups (p < .001). These scores did not differ significantly between the two groups |
B: Partial nail elevation and flexible tube (57 toenails) | Not reported | |||
Conservative treatment (e.g., braces and gutter treatment) v’s surgical matrixectomy (n = 2 studies) | ||||
Kruijff (2008) [45] | A: Partial nail extraction with partial matrix excision (n = 58) | 4 weeks, 26 weeks and 12 months (1–10, 10 very satisfied) | 4 weeks: 7.3 (median) 26 weeks: 8.74 (median) 12 months: Not reported | 4 weeks: p < 0.040 26 weeks: p = 0.001 12 months: No significance difference stated |
B: Orthonyxia (n = 51) | 4 weeks: 8.43 (median) 26 weeks: 9.57 (median) 12 months: Not reported | |||
Peyvandi (2011) [41] | A: Winograd method (n = 50) | 6 months | Not reported | The majority of patients were satisfied more with the sleeve than the Winograd method. No further information provided |
B: Sleeve (gutter) method (n = 50) | Not reported | |||
Chemical matrixectomy v’s Surgical matrixectomy (n = 2 studies) | ||||
Leahy (1990) [40] | A: Chemical ablation (phenol) (n = 32) | Assessed as ‘good’ or ‘poor’ between 16 and 30 months | Good: n = 19/32 Poor: n = 13/32 | No statistical analysis undertaken |
B: Surgical ablation (n = 34) | Good: n = 22/34 Poor: n = 12/32 | |||
Gerritsma-Bleeker (2002) [46] | A: Partial nail extraction with phenolisation (n = 31) | 1, 3 and 12 months; satisfaction with scar’ and ‘satisfaction with cosmetic result’ | Satisfaction with scar: 1 month: 2.1 ± 2.2 3 months: 1.3 ± 1.0 12 months: 1.7 ± 2.2 Satisfaction with cosmetic result: 1 month: 1.1 ± 2.1 3 months: 1.0 ± 2.1 12 months: 2.0 ± 3.0 | Satisfaction with scar: 1 month: p = 0.020 3 months: p = 0.370 12 months: p = 0.460 Satisfaction with cosmetic result: 1 month: p = 0.550 3 months: p = 0.110 12 months: p = 0.170 |
B: Partial nail extraction with matrix excision (n = 34) | Satisfaction with scar: 1 month: 1.2 ± 0.4 3 months: 1.7 ± 1.8 12 months: 1.3 ± 1.2 Satisfaction with cosmetic result: 1 month: 1.4 ± 2.7 3 months: 2.2 ± 3.2 12 months: 1.0 ± 1.9 | |||
Chemical matrixectomy v’s Surgical + chemical matrixectomy (n = 1 study) | ||||
Anderson (1990) [32] | A: Nail bed excision (n = 17) | Timepoint unclear | 1 participant expressed dissatisfaction | No statistical analysis undertaken |
B: Combination of nail bed phenolisation and excision (n = 14) | No reports of dissatisfaction | |||
Chemical matrixectomy v’s ‘Other’ (e.g., laser and electrocautery) (n = 1 study) | ||||
Awad (2020) [20] | A: Partial nail matrixectomy with electrocautery (n = 100) | Aesthetic resultsa after 1 and 6 months | Good: 97 (48.5%) | No statistical analysis undertaken |
B: Partial nail matrixectomy (n = 100) | Good: 99 (49.5) | |||
Chemical matrixectomy v’s Avulsion only (n = 1 study) | ||||
Greig (1991) [35] | A: Total avulsion (n = 81 nail edges) | Timepoint unclear | Satisfied: 27 participants of 59 (46%) | No statistical analysis undertaken |
B: Nail edge excision (n = 56 nail edges) | Satisfied: 23 participants of 47 (49%) | |||
C: Nail edge excision and phenolisation (n = 67 nail edges) | Satisfied: 48 participants of 57 (84%) | |||