D J Leaper1, C E Edmiston2, C E Holy3. 1. Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, and Department of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Skin Integrity and Infection Prevention, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK. 2. Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Johnson & Johnson Epidemiology and Health Informatics - Medical Devices, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite several randomized trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have demonstrated the effectiveness of antimicrobial (triclosan-coated or -impregnated) sutures (TCS), the clinical and economic impact of using these sutures compared with conventional non-antimicrobial-coated absorbable sutures (NCS) remains poorly documented. METHODS: An independent systematic review and meta-analysis of all published evidence from January 2005 to September 2016 comparing TCS with NCS was conducted. Surgical-site infection (SSI) was the primary outcome. The results of the meta-analysis were used in a decision-tree deterministic and stochastic cost model, using the National Health Service (NHS England)-based cost of inpatient admissions for infections and differential costs of TCS versus NCS. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included in the final assessment from an initial 163 identified citations; 20 of 34 studies were randomized, and 17 of 34 reported blinding of physicians and assessors. Using a random-effects model, the odds ratio for SSI in the TCS compared with NCS control groups was statistically significant (odds ratio 0·61, 95 per cent c.i. 0·52 to 0·73; P < 0·001). There was significant heterogeneity (I2 = 49 per cent). Using random-effects event estimates of SSI for TCS and NCS for each individual wound type, the mean savings per surgical procedure from using antimicrobial sutures were significant: £91·25 (90 per cent c.i. 49·62 to 142·76) (€105·09 (57·15 to 164·41); exchange rate 15 November 2016) across all wound types. CONCLUSION: The reviewed literature suggested that antimicrobial sutures may result in significant savings across various surgical wound types.
BACKGROUND: Despite several randomized trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have demonstrated the effectiveness of antimicrobial (triclosan-coated or -impregnated) sutures (TCS), the clinical and economic impact of using these sutures compared with conventional non-antimicrobial-coated absorbable sutures (NCS) remains poorly documented. METHODS: An independent systematic review and meta-analysis of all published evidence from January 2005 to September 2016 comparing TCS with NCS was conducted. Surgical-site infection (SSI) was the primary outcome. The results of the meta-analysis were used in a decision-tree deterministic and stochastic cost model, using the National Health Service (NHS England)-based cost of inpatient admissions for infections and differential costs of TCS versus NCS. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included in the final assessment from an initial 163 identified citations; 20 of 34 studies were randomized, and 17 of 34 reported blinding of physicians and assessors. Using a random-effects model, the odds ratio for SSI in the TCS compared with NCS control groups was statistically significant (odds ratio 0·61, 95 per cent c.i. 0·52 to 0·73; P < 0·001). There was significant heterogeneity (I2 = 49 per cent). Using random-effects event estimates of SSI for TCS and NCS for each individual wound type, the mean savings per surgical procedure from using antimicrobial sutures were significant: £91·25 (90 per cent c.i. 49·62 to 142·76) (€105·09 (57·15 to 164·41); exchange rate 15 November 2016) across all wound types. CONCLUSION: The reviewed literature suggested that antimicrobial sutures may result in significant savings across various surgical wound types.
Authors: D Leaper; P Wilson; O Assadian; C Edmiston; M Kiernan; A Miller; G Bond-Smith; J Yap Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Shixuan Chen; Liangpeng Ge; Adrian F Gombart; Franklin D Shuler; Mark A Carlson; Debra A Reilly; Jingwei Xie Journal: Nanomedicine (Lond) Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 5.307
Authors: N A Henriksen; E B Deerenberg; L Venclauskas; R H Fortelny; J M Garcia-Alamino; M Miserez; F E Muysoms Journal: Hernia Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Robert Garcia; Sue Barnes; Roy Boukidjian; Linda Kaye Goss; Maureen Spencer; Edward J Septimus; Marc-Oliver Wright; Shannon Munro; Sara M Reese; Mohamad G Fakih; Charles E Edmiston; Martin Levesque Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 4.303
Authors: Imran Ahmed; Adam Jonathan Boulton; Sana Rizvi; William Carlos; Edward Dickenson; N A Smith; Mike Reed Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 2.692