Objective The objective of this study was to determine whether suturing or conservative management of tongue lacerations results in differences in wound healing and functional outcome. The secondary aim was to identify whether antibiotics are required in the treatment of tongue lacerations. Methods Studies published between December 1954 and August 2020 were extracted from MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via OVID, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library and evaluated for inclusion based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results The search yielded a total of 16,111 articles, 124 of which were evaluated by full-text review, resulting in 11 articles included in this systematic review representing 142 unique cases of tongue lacerations. At least 26 lacerations (18.3%) included penetration of the muscle layer of the tongue, and 24 (16.9%) were classified as full-thickness lacerations. Thirty-five of the 142 tongue lacerations (24.6%) were sutured. The remaining lacerations underwent some form of conservative management. The majority of studies reported excellent healing of tongue lacerations regardless of the management method, with minimal scarring and excellent return to normal functional status. No cases of infection were reported. Conclusions Current literature is inconsistent with regards to indications and guidelines for primary repair of tongue lacerations. The majority of tongue lacerations reported in the literature heal with excellent outcomes regardless of management method. Physician judgement along with patient and parental preference based on potential risks of the procedure should be used when deciding whether a tongue laceration requires primary repair. Tongue lacerations in otherwise healthy individuals are at very low risk of infection.

中文翻译：

---

急性护理环境中舌裂伤的手术与保守治疗：文献的系统评价

目的 本研究的目的是确定舌裂伤的缝合或保守治疗是否会导致伤口愈合和功能结果的差异。次要目的是确定在治疗舌裂伤时是否需要抗生素。方法 1954 年 12 月至 2020 年 8 月期间发表的研究通过 PubMed 从 MEDLINE、通过 OVID 的 Embase、通过 EBSCO、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 图书馆的 CINAHL 提取，并由两名独立评审员根据预先确定的纳入和排除标准评估纳入PRISMA 指南。结果 搜索共检索到 16,111 篇文章，其中 124 篇通过全文综述进行评估，最终纳入本系统综述的 11 篇文章，代表 142 例独特的舌裂伤病例。至少 26 处撕裂伤（18.3%）包括穿透舌肌层，24 处（16.9%）被归类为全层撕裂伤。142 例舌裂伤中有 35 例（24.6%）被缝合。其余的裂伤经历了某种形式的保守治疗。大多数研究报告说，无论采用何种管理方法，舌头撕裂伤的愈合都非常好，疤痕最小，功能状态恢复良好。没有报告感染病例。结论 目前的文献对舌裂伤一期修复的适应症和指南不一致。文献中报道的大多数舌头撕裂伤无论采用何种管理方法都能治愈且效果良好。在决定舌裂伤是否需要初步修复时，应使用医生的判断以及基于手术潜在风险的患者和父母的偏好。其他健康个体的舌头撕裂伤感染的风险非常低。