ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite a recent Cochrane Review demonstrating blunt suture needles are safer for surgeons, the use of blunt suture needles has not become widely adopted. In the 'Implant Era', with the value of medical implant companies to surpass $145 billion by 2027, should we re-examine the use of blunt suture needles, especially to reduce infection in implant surgery? We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing whether blunt suture needles reduce risks to surgeons and patients. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed per PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases were searched for RCTs. Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios (RR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the MH method. Random or fixed effects modelling use was based on statistical heterogeneity (I2). RESULTS: 14 RCTs were identified with 2488 patients. The RCTs included laparotomies, caesarean sections, episiotomies, and orthopaedic surgeries. Blunt suture needles when compared with sharp needles resulted in a significant reduction in glove perforation; RR: 0.47, 95% CI [0.37 to 0.60] and needlestick injuries, RR: 0.50, 95% CI [0.26 to 0.97]. Sharp needles caused more wound infections, but the result was not statistically significant; RR: 2.73, 95% CI [0.54 to 13.76], p 0.22. Surgeon's satisfaction decreased with blunt needles compared with sharp (RR: 1.22, 95% CI [1.09 to 1.37]). CONCLUSION: Blunt suture needles are safer than sharp needles for surgeons and likely reduce risks to patients. This, however, comes at the cost of decreased ease of use. The authors recommend the routine use of blunt suture needles, especially in implant surgery.
