ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We assessed clinical outcomes of patients undergoing open hernia repair using STRATAFIX™ Symmetric, a barbed triclosan-coated suture (TCS; Ethicon), versus conventional polydioxanone suture (PDS) for abdominal wall closure. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study identified patients undergoing hernia repair. The site used PDS from 2013 to 2016 and switched exclusively to barbed TCS in 2017. Outcomes were assessed at 30, 60, and 90 days. Multivariate regression analyses and Cox proportional hazards models were used. RESULTS: Of 821 hernia repairs, 446 used barbed TCS and 375 used conventional PDS. Surgical site infections (SSIs) were significantly less frequent with barbed TCS (60 days, 5.9% vs. 11.4%; P = 0.0083; 90 days, 5.9% vs. 11.7%; P = 0.006) and this remained consistent after multivariate adjustment (60 days, OR [95% CI]: 0.5 [0.3-0.9]; 90 days, 0.5 [0.3-0.9]). Among patients with SSI, deep SSIs were less frequent with barbed TCS (60 days, 9.1% vs. 35.7%; P = 0.022; 90 days, 9.1% vs. 34.9%; P = 0.0252). Barbed TCS significantly reduced the risk of perioperative complications (HR [95% CI]: 0.5[0.3-0.8]; P = 0.0058). Hospital length of stay was 2.5 days shorter with barbed TCS (mean [95% CI]: 5.7[4.9-6.6] vs. 8.2[7.3-9.1] days; P < 0.0001). No differences in reoperation rate over time were observed by type of suture (HR[95% CI]:1.3 [0.5-3.4]; P = 0.4793). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that patients who underwent open hernia repair appeared to recover equally well regardless of the suture type. In addition, the use of barbed TCS was associated with significantly reduced risk of perioperative complications and hospital length of stay.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent ~ 20% of all hospital-acquired infections in surgical patients and are associated with prolonged hospital stay, admission to intensive care, and mortality. We conducted a systematic review with economic and environmental models to assess whether triclosan-coated sutures (Plus Sutures) provide benefits over non-coated sutures in the reduction of SSI risk. METHODS: Searches were conducted in fifteen databases. A total of 1,991 records were retrieved. Following deduplication and screening by two independent reviewers, 31 randomized controlled trials in adults and children were included in the review. Similarity of the studies was assessed by narrative review and confirmed by quantitative assessment. A fixed effects meta-analysis of SSI incidence model including all groups of patients estimated a risk ratio of 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 0.79) indicating those in the Plus Sutures group had a 29% reduction in the risk of developing an SSI compared with those in the control group (p < 0.001). Safety outcomes were analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: The economic model estimated the use of Plus Sutures to result in average cost savings of £13.63 per patient. Plus Sutures remained cost-saving in all subgroup analyses with cost-savings ranging between £11 (clean wounds) and £140 (non-clean wounds). The environmental impact of SSI is substantial, and the model suggests that the introduction of Plus Sutures could result in potential environmental benefits. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that Plus Sutures are associated with a reduced incidence of SSI across all surgery types alongside cost savings when compared with standard sutures.
