Abstract
The meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the sternal wound infections following internal mammary artery grafts for a coronary bypass. Examinations comparing bilateral internal mammary artery to single internal mammary artery for coronary artery bypass grafting were among the meta-analyses from various languages that met the inclusion criteria. Using dichotomous random- or fixed-effect models, the results of these investigations were examined, and the Odd Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was computed. A total of 31 examinations from 2001 to 2023 were recruited for the current analysis including 181 503 personals with coronary artery bypass grafting. Bilateral internal mammary artery had significantly higher sternal wound infection (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.37-1.68, p < 0.001), superficial sternal wound infection (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.16-2.56, p = 0.007), deep sternal wound infection (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.41-1.86, p < 0.001), sternal wound infection in diabetics (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.16-1.90, p = 0.002), sternal wound infection in elderly (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.57, p < 0.001), sternal wound infection in pedicled preparation (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.30-2.23, p < 0.001) and sternal wound infection in skeletonized preparation (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.09-1.81, p = 0.009) compared to single internal mammary artery in personals with coronary artery bypass grafting. Bilateral internal mammary artery grafting is linked to a higher risk of impaired wound healing, particularly in diabetic individuals, elderly, pedicled preparation, and skeletonized preparation. Nevertheless, caution should be exercised while interacting with its values since examinations were performed by different surgeons with different skills on different types of personals.