Barbed versus traditional sutures for wound closure in knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhang W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4726393 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Barbed versus traditional sutures for wound closure in knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Zhang Wei W Xue Deting D Yin Houfa H Xie Hui H Ma Honghai H Chen Erman E Hu Dongcai D Pan Zhijun Z
Scientific reports 20160125
Sutures are an increasing focus of research in knee arthroplasty (KA). Whether knotless barbed sutures (KBS) are safe and efficient in KA remains controversial. The objective of our study is to compare the clinical outcomes of KA according to wound closure method: KBS versus knotted traditional sutures (KTS). To clarify this, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nine articles involving 10 studies were included in this study. The dataset consisted of 1729 patients with 1754 KA. Amo ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to study surgical site infection of wound closure using staples versus sutures in elective knee and hip arthroplasties.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed to search for randomized controlled trials that compared surgical site infection after wound closure using staples versus sutures in elective knee and hip arthroplasties. The primary outcome was surgical site infection. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. The relative risk and 95% confidence interval with a random-effects model were assessed.ResultsEight studies were included in this study, including 2 studies with a low risk of bias, 4 studies having 'some concerns', and 2 studies with high risk of bias. Significant difference was not found in the risk of SSI for patients with staples (n = 557) versus sutures (n = 573) (RR: 1.70, 95% CI: 0.94-3.08, I2 = 16%). The results were similar after excluding the studies with a high risk of bias (RR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.91-3.07, I2 = 32%). Analysis of studies with low risk of bias revealed a significantly higher risk of surgical site infection in patients with staples (n = 331) compared to sutures (n = 331) (RR: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.20-5.44, I2 = 0%). There was no difference between continuous and interrupted sutures (P > 0.05). In hip arthroplasty, stapling carried a significantly higher risk of surgical site infection than suturing (RR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.15-5.50, I2 = 0%), but there was no significant difference in knee arthroplasty (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33-2.25, I2 = 22%; P > 0.05).ConclusionsStapling might carry a higher risk of surgical site infection than suturing in elective knee and hip arthroplasties, especially in hip arthroplasty.
| S-EPMC8896293 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC3495200 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In the spectrum of surgical decision-making, wound closure material is often an afterthought. However, the findings of a recent meta-analysis suggest that the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) is increased by using staples to close surgical wounds. Less clear is the effect of closure material on the incidence of non-infectious wound complications.The aim of this study was to compare sutures and staples in terms of: incidence of wound complications to determine the sample size for a definitive trial comparing wound closure methods. METHODS:Eligible adult orthopaedic patients were randomized to have wounds closed with sutures or staples. Time for skin closure was recorded. Wounds were assessed for complications for six weeks. The incidence of complications was compared using Fisher's exact test. Time to close and pain with removal of closure material were compared using a Student's t-test. RESULTS:The total number of patients reporting a wound complication was 59 of 148 patients completing six-week followup (41%), with no differennce between sutures and staples (RR = 0.77, CI = 0.52-1.14). The time to close wounds was shorter in the staple group (mean=4.8 min, CI = 2.6-7.1) than the suture group (mean=12 min, CI = 7.9-16). Patients in the staple group (mean=3.7, CI =2.8-4.6) reported more pain with removal than suture group (mean=2.5, CI =1.6-3.4). CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that 42% of patients report a wound complication with no difference between sutures and staples. It was demonstrated that suturing skin requires more time and staples are more painful to remove. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01146236 (registered June 14, 2010).
| S-EPMC3598732 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC2840224 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundKnee joint arthroplasty is a commonly performed procedure. However, number of obese patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty is on a rise. In such cases, post closure using routine techniques, there have been an increasing number of cases of wound dehiscence and complications like persistent discharge and delayed healing. To overcome this problem, the author has come up with an innovative technique in closure.Materials and methods27 patients, who were obese, were included in the study and operated at Orthopaedic Arthroscopic Knee and Shoulder clinic. The patients were evaluated pre operatively clinically and planned for retention stitches for closure. Same technique was followed for closure in all the patients. Suture removal was done at 2 weeks and patients were followed up for a period of 6 months for any complications.ResultsIn 27 patients undergoing retention stitches post total knee arthroplasty, patients were followed up for a mean period of 14 months, with minimum being 6 months and maximum being 5 years. Patients showed no complications such as wound dehiscence, discharge, localised skin necrosis or cut-through of stitches.ConclusionRetention stitches in knee arthroplasty is an innovative, ideal, yet easily replicable method of wound closure in obese patients, especially with BMI > 30 (Obesity grade 1 or more). Patients undergo better and uneventful wound healing, which is of paramount importance in a surgery like this. In all these patients, the rehabilitation post surgery is also similar to the other patients, hence not affecting the outcome.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-021-00596-y.
| S-EPMC9123118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIsolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PF-OA) is a common subtype of knee osteoarthritis, leading to a huge economic burden on health care systems. Although previous studies have shown that patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have good clinical effects, it remains largely unclear which treatment is more effective for patients with isolated PF-OA. We aimed to compare postoperative function, complications, revision rates, level of physical activity, and satisfaction rate between the two surgical techniques.MethodsOur study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Search of literature was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until November 2020. The included studies were those that provided direct comparison of postoperative outcomes between PFA and TKA. Data were extracted from eligible studies and combined to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted to evaluate heterogeneity between the two groups.ResultsA total of 7 eligible studies (3 recent randomized controlled trials and 4 nonrandomized controlled trials) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that both the PFA group and the TKA group had improved postoperative indicators, suggesting that the two operation modes could improve the knee function and quality of life of patients. Throughout the first 2 years postoperatively, higher activity level, and better functional recovery were observed for PFA compared with TKA in this study; moreover, the differences between the two operation modes were statistically significant (p < 0.05). We found no significant difference in complications, revision rates, and satisfaction rate between the two procedures.ConclusionAlthough there was no observed difference in the complications, revision rates, and satisfaction rate between PFA and TKA, PFA was superior to TKA in terms of knee function and physical activity in the first 2 years postoperatively. Therefore, PFA is a safe, effective, and less invasive treatment for patients with isolated PF-OA. Our findings are consistent with the systematic review of current evidence that PFA may be more suitable for younger patients with high activity needs. Patient selection is, therefore, thought to be of paramount importance. Individualized surgical plan should be designed according to the patient's age, BMI, KOA site, and activity level and combined with the doctor's personal experience.
| S-EPMC8048312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWound closure is a key, and often underrecognized, component of hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods for wound closure are an important consideration to better avoid wound-related adverse events; however, there is a lack of consensus on optimal methods. The objective of the following review was twofold: to characterize the wound closure methods used by layer in the total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty literature and summarize optimal wound-healing strategies to address the risk of adverse events.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed to identify total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies reporting wound closure methods by layer and wound-healing adverse events (including superficial, deep, or periprosthetic joint infections, wound dehiscence, or prolonged wound drainage). Studies on revision procedures were excluded. Wound closure methods and adverse events were summarized qualitatively as meta-analyses were not possible because of study heterogeneity.ResultsForty studies met the inclusion criteria: 22 randomized controlled trials and 18 observational studies. Across studies, 6 categories and 22 unique techniques for closure were identified. Conventional closure methods exhibited large ranges of adverse event rates. Studies of multilayer barbed sutures with topical skin adhesives and polyester mesh or multilayer antimicrobial sutures reported narrow ranges of adverse events rates.ConclusionsConsiderable variability exists for wound closure methods, with a wide range reported in adverse events. Recent technologies and methods for standardized watertight, multilayer closure show promise for avoiding adverse events and unnecessary health-care costs; however, higher quality, comparative studies are required to enable future meta-analyses.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
| S-EPMC8430424 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of barbed versus smooth sutures for soft tissue closure of exposed jawbone sites in medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) patients. Exposed necrotic jawbone sites surgically managed by intraoral soft tissue closure were evaluated. Either barbed sutures (Stratafix™ or V-Loc™) together with Prolene® or Vicryl® sutures were used. We estimated the effect of barbed sutures (BS) with Prolene® compared to smooth sutures (Vicryl®) on the hazard rate of intraoral soft tissue dehiscence using a multivariate Cox regression model within a target trial framework, adjusting for relevant confounders. In total, 306 operations were performed in 188 sites. In the primary analysis 182 sites without prior surgery were included. Of these, 113 sites developed a dehiscence during follow-up. 84 sites were operated using BS and Prolene®. A total of 222 sites were operated with Vicryl® (control group). In the BS group, the median time to event (i.e., dehiscence) was 148 days (interquartile range (IQR), 42-449 days) compared to 15 days (IQR, 12-52 days) in the control group. The hazard rate of developing intraoral dehiscence was 0.03 times (95%-confidence interval (CI): 0.01; 0.14, p < 0.001) lower for BS patients compared to the control group. Within the limits of a retrospective study, BS showed a high success rate and are therefore recommended for soft tissue closure of exposed jawbone sites in MRONJ patients. Additional studies are warranted to further evaluate this novel application of BS.
| S-EPMC8069803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The management of flexor tendon injuries has evolved in recent years through industrial improvements in suture materials, refinements of repair methods, and early rehabilitation protocols. However, there is no consensus on the ideal suture material and technique. This study was conducted to compare the tensile strength, repair time, and characteristics of 4-strand cruciate, modified Kessler, and 4-strand horizontal intrafiber barbed sutures for flexor tenorrhaphy with a 12-mm suture purchase length in an animal model. METHODS:The right third deep flexors of 60 adult Leghorn chicken feet were isolated and repaired with a 12-mm suture purchase length. The tendons were randomly assigned to three groups of equal number (n=20 each). Groups 1 and 2 received 4-strand cruciate and modified Kessler repair with conventional suture materials, respectively. A 4-strand horizontal intrafiber barbed suture technique was used in group 3. The repaired tendons were biomechanically tested for tensile strength, 2-mm gap resistance, and mode of failure. Repair times were also recorded. RESULTS:The maximum tensile strength until failure was 44.6±4.3 N in group 1, 35.7±5.2 N in group 2, and 56.7±17.3 N in group 3. The barbed sutures were superior to the other sutures in terms of the load needed for 2-mm gap formation (P<0.05). Furthermore, the barbed sutures showed the shortest repair time (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS:This study found that 4-strand horizontal intrafiber barbed suture repair with a 12-mm purchase length in a chicken flexor tendon injury model showed promising biomechanical properties and took less time to perform than other options.
| S-EPMC6536874 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim was to evaluate whether using novel anchored barded suture for capsular closure can further shorten the length of stay following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) within existed enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in osteoarthritis patients.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted among osteoarthritis patients aged 18 to 80 years without major comorbidities who underwent primary unilateral TKA between January 2018 and December 2019 was conducted. The capsular closure techniques, interventions for ERAS, operation time and length of stay were collected via hospital electronic information system. Propensity-score matching was used to compensate for the difference in interventions for ERAS and patient characteristics. Subgroup comparison of patients treated under normal ERAS protocol was performed.ResultsIncluded were 315 patients with capsular closure by barded suture and 397 patients with interrupted capsular closure by traditional suture. Patients' characteristics and interventions for ERAS were balanced after propensity-score matching. The average postoperative length of stay in barded suture group was shorter than the compared group (2.10 ± 0.57 vs. 2.33 ± 0.80 days, p = 0.004), and with a significantly higher proportion of patients discharging within 2 days post procedure (88.0% vs. 70.7%, p < 0.001). The operation time for patients with barded suture closure was shorter compared to interrupted closure technique (100.90 ± 16.59 vs. 105.52 ± 18.47 min, p = 0.004). Subgroup analysis of patients treated under different levels ERAS protocol showed comparable results.ConclusionThe use of barded suture for capsular closure was associated with shorter length of stay after TKA compared to traditional suture, suggesting that barded suturing technique could be one effective intervention for ERAS.
| S-EPMC8996641 | biostudies-literature