Dataset Information

A systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis: staples versus sutures for surgical procedures.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To systematically evaluate the evidence across surgical specialties as to whether staples or sutures better improve patient and provider level outcomes.

Design

A systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis of pooled estimates.

Results

Eleven systematic reviews, including 13,661 observations, met the inclusion criteria. In orthopaedic surgery sutures were found to be preferable, and for appendicial stump sutures were protective against both surgical site infection and post surgical complications. However, staples were protective against leak in ilecolic anastomosis. For all other surgery types the evidence was inconclusive with wider confidence intervals including the possibly of preferential outcomes for surgical site infection or post surgical complication for either staples or sutures. Whilst reviews showed substantial variation in mean differences in operating time (I(2) 94%) there was clear evidence of a reduction in average operating time across all surgery types. Few reviews reported on length of stay, but the three reviews that did (I(2) 0%, including 950 observations) showed a non significant reduction in length of stay, but showed evidence of publication bias (P-value for Egger test 0.05).

Conclusions

Evidence across surgical specialties indicates that wound closure with staples reduces the mean operating time. Despite including several thousand observations, no clear evidence of superiority emerged for either staples or sutures with respect to surgical site infection, post surgical complications, or length of stay.

SUBMITTER: Hemming K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3792070 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis: staples versus sutures for surgical procedures.

Hemming Karla K Pinkney Thomas T Futaba Kay K Pennant Mary M Morton Dion G DG Lilford Richard J RJ

PloS one 20131007 10

<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically evaluate the evidence across surgical specialties as to whether staples or sutures better improve patient and provider level outcomes.<h4>Design</h4>A systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis of pooled estimates.<h4>Results</h4>Eleven systematic reviews, including 13,661 observations, met the inclusion criteria. In orthopaedic surgery sutures were found to be preferable, and for appendicial stump sutures were protective against both ...[more]

PMID: 24116028

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of staples versus sutures in wound closure after orthopaedic surgery.DesignMeta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, CINAHL, AMED, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched, in addition to the grey literature, in all languages from 1950 to September 2009. Additional studies were identified from cited references. Selection criteria Two authors independently assessed papers for eligibility. Included studies were randomised and non-randomised controlled trials that compared the use of staples with suture material for wound closure after orthopaedic surgery procedures. All studies were included, and publications were not excluded because of poor methodological quality. Review methods Two authors independently reviewed studies for methodological quality and extracted data from each paper. Final data for analysis were collated through consensus. The primary outcome measure was the assessment of superficial wound infection after wound closure with staples compared with sutures. Relative risk and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled with a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with I(2) and chi(2) statistical test.ResultsSix papers, which included 683 wounds, were identified; 332 patients underwent suture closure and 351 staple closure. The risk of developing a superficial wound infection after orthopaedic procedures was over three times greater after staple closure than suture closure (relative risk 3.83, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 10.68; P=0.01). On subgroup analysis of hip surgery alone, the risk of developing a wound infection was four times greater after staple closure than suture closure (4.79, 1.24 to 18.47; P=0.02). There was no significant difference between sutures and staples in the development of inflammation, discharge, dehiscence, necrosis, and allergic reaction. The included studies had several major methodological limitations, including the recruitment of small, underpowered cohorts, poorly randomising patients, and not blinding assessors to the allocated methods of wound closure. Only one study had acceptable methodological quality.ConclusionsAfter orthopaedic surgery, there is a significantly higher risk of developing a wound infection when the wound is closed with staples rather than sutures. This risk is specifically greater in patients who undergo hip surgery. The use of staples for closing hip or knee surgery wounds after orthopaedic procedures cannot be recommended, though the evidence comes from studies with substantial methodological limitations. Though we advise orthopaedic surgeons to reconsider their use of staples for wound closure, definitive randomised trials are still needed to assess this research question.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A recently published meta-analysis comparing metallic staples to sutures in orthopaedic procedures revealed three fold increase in risk for infection in stapled wounds. The studies included in the meta-analysis are at risk of bias due to experimental design limitations. A large randomized controlled trial is proposed to direct orthopaedic surgeons in their choice of wound closure material. METHODS/DESIGN:A parallel group randomized controlled trial with institutional review board approval will be conducted. Patients will be randomized intraoperatively to have skin wounds closed with sutures or staples. Dressings will be used to maintain blinding outcome assessors. The primary outcome measure will be a composite all-cause wound complication outcome measure composed of: infection, wound drainage, wound necrosis, blistering, dehiscence, suture abscess and material sensitivity reaction. An independent review board blinded to treatment assignment will adjudicate suspected complications based on clinical data. All deceased patients will also be reviewed. An interim analysis of complications will take place after half of the patients have been recruited. All data will be analyzed by a blinded statistician. Dichotomous primary and secondary outcome measures will be analyzed using the Chi-squared statistic. Continuous outcome measures will be analyzed using Student's?t-test. Subgroup analysis will compare infection rates using sutures versus staples in each anatomic area (upper extremity, pelvis/acetabulum, hip/femur, knee, ankle). A further subgroup analysis will be conducted comparing trauma patients to elective surgery patients. Non-infected revision surgery will also be compared to primary surgery. DISCUSSION:Wound closure material is an afterthought for many orthopaedic surgeons. The combined results of several comparative trials suggests that the choice of wound closure materials may have an impact on the rate of surgical site infections. However, the strength of the evidence is poor given the heterogeneity of the methods employed in previous studies. The following study protocol aims to guide surgeons in their choice of wound closure material by determining if there is a difference in complication rates in sutured and stapled wounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT01146236 (registered June 14, 2010).

Project description:BackgroundDeep sedation relieves a patient's anxiety and stress during the procedure by inducing patient unconsciousness. However, it remains unclear whether deep sedation actually improves patient satisfaction with the procedure. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the satisfaction of patients undergoing deep sedation with that of those undergoing light/moderate sedation during non-surgical procedures.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed using electronic databases (search until September 2020). The primary outcome was whether patient satisfaction was higher after deep sedation or light/moderate sedation. The secondary outcome was the relative safety of deep sedation compared with light/moderate sedation in terms of oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate. The tertiary outcomes were the relative procedure and recovery times for deep versus light/moderate sedation.Data from each of the trials were combined, and calculations were made using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. The pooled effect estimates for patient satisfaction were evaluated using relative risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI). The pooled effect estimates for continuous data are expressed as weighted mean difference with the 95% CI. We assessed heterogeneity with the Cochrane Q statistic and the I2 statistic. The risk of bias assessment and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach were used as the quality assessment method.ResultsAfter removing unrelated studies and applying the exclusion criterion, 5 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in those who received deep sedation compared with light/moderate sedation (relative risk = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20; P = .003; Cochrane Q = 25.0; I2 = 76%).There was no significant difference in oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and procedure times according to whether the procedures were performed under deep or light/moderate sedation. However, the recovery time was significantly prolonged in patients under deep sedation.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests that deep sedation resulted in improved patient satisfaction compared with light/moderate sedation. Deep sedation is recommended for patients undergoing procedures because it improves patient satisfaction. However, respiration and circulation should be carefully monitored both intra-operatively and postoperatively.

Project description:BackgroundUS opioid prescribing and use escalated over the last two decades, with parallel increases in opioid misuse, opioid-related deaths, and concerns about diversion. Postoperatively prescribed opioids contribute to these problems. Policy makers have addressed this issue by limiting postoperative opioid prescribing. However, until recently, little data existed to guide prescribers on opioid needs postoperatively. This meta-analysis quantitatively integrated the growing literature regarding extent of opioids leftover after surgery and identified factors associated with leftover opioid proportions.MethodsWe conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies quantifying postoperative opioid consumption in North American adults, and evaluated effect size moderators using robust variance estimation meta-regression. Medline, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant articles published January 1, 2000 to November 10, 2018. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool assessed risk of study bias. The proportion effect size quantified the primary outcome: proportion of prescribed postoperative opioids leftover at the time of follow-up. Primary meta-regression analyses tested surgical type, amount of opioids prescribed, and study publication year as possible moderators. Secondary meta-regression models included surgical invasiveness, age, race, gender, postoperative day of data collection, and preoperative opioid use.ResultsWe screened 911 citations and included 44 studies (13,068 patients). The mean weighted effect size for proportion of postoperative opioid prescriptions leftover was 61% (95% CI, 56-67%). Meta-regression models revealed type of surgical procedure and level of invasiveness had a statistically significant effect on proportion of opioids leftover. Proportion of opioids leftover was greater for "other soft tissue" surgeries than abdominal/pelvic surgeries, but did not differ significantly between orthopedic and abdominal/pelvic surgeries. Minimally invasive compared to open surgeries resulted in a greater proportion of opioids leftover. Limitations include predominance of studies from academic settings, inconsistent reporting of confounders, and a possible publication bias toward studies reporting smaller leftover opioid proportions.Conclusions and implications of key findingsA significant proportion of opioids are leftover postoperatively. Surgery type and level of invasiveness affect postoperative opioid consumption. Integration of such factors into prescribing guidelines may help minimize opioid overprescribing while adequately meeting analgesic needs.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis: staples versus sutures for surgical procedures.

Objective

Design

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis: staples versus sutures for surgical procedures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets