Effect of Triclosan-Coated Sutures on the Incidence of Surgical Wound Infection After Lower Limb Revascularization Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Department of Surgery, North Karelia Central Hospital, Tikkamäentie 1, Joensuu, 80210, Finland, . World Journal of Surgery
(Impact Factor: 2.64).
05/2012; 36(10):2528-34. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-012-1655-4
Surgical wound infection (SWI) is a common complication after peripheral vascular surgery. In a prospective study, triclosan-coated sutures were reported to decrease the incidence of surgical site infection after various surgical procedures. The aim of our study was to test the hypothesis that use of triclosan-coated sutures decreases the incidence of SWI after lower limb vascular surgery.
This prospective, randomized, multicenter, double-blinded trial was conducted between July 2010 and January 2011 in five hospitals in Finland. We randomly allocated 276 patients undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery to a study (n = 139) or a control (n = 137) group. Surgical wounds in the study group were closed with triclosan-coated suture material, and wounds in the control group were closed with noncoated sutures. The main outcome measure was SWI. A surgical wound complication was considered to be an infection if there were bacteria isolated from the wound or if there were areas of localized redness, heat, swelling, and pain around the wound appearing within 30 days after the operative procedure. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the independent effect of triclosan-coated sutures on the incidence of SWI.
Altogether, 61 (22.1 %) patients developed SWI. SWI occurred in 31 (22.3 %) patients in the study group and in 30 (21.9 %) patients in the control group (odds ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.61-2.01, p = 0.75.)
The use of triclosan-coated sutures does not reduce the incidence of SWI after lower limb vascular surgery.
Available from: Anders Jeppsson
- "Triclosan has been used in topical preparations for antibacterial purposes. Furthermore, triclosan-coated sutures are commercially available and have been clinically tested in different surgical procedures with diverging results          . One randomized controlled trial, comparing triclosan-coated sutures with identical sutures without coating in CABG patients, failed to demonstrate a difference in the incidence of leg-wound SSI . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
The incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after open vein harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients ranges in different studies between 2 and 20%. Triclosan is an antibacterial substance that reduces the growth of bacteria by inhibiting fatty acid synthesis. We hypothesized that wound closure with triclosan-coated sutures would reduce SSI after open vein harvesting.
An investigator-initiated prospective randomized double-blind single-centre study was performed with 374 patients, randomized to subcutaneous and intracutaneous leg-wound closure with either triclosan-coated sutures (Vicryl Plus® and Monocryl Plus®, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) (n = 184) or identical sutures without triclosan (n = 190) from the same manufacturer. All patients were followed up after 30 days (clinical visit) and 60 days (telephone interview). Primary endpoint was SSI within 60 days after surgery according to the definition of Center for Disease Control. Predefined secondary endpoints included culture-proven and antibiotic-treated SSI.
The primary endpoint occurred in 23 patients (12.5%) with triclosan-coated sutures and in 38 patients (20.0%) in the group without triclosan (P = 0.0497, risk ratio 0.63, (95% confidence interval 0.39–1.00). Corresponding figures for culture-proven infections were 7.6 vs 12.1%, (P = 0.15), and for antibiotic-treated infections, 10.9 vs 18.4%, (P = 0.039). Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most common pathogens in both groups. Insulin-treated diabetes and vein-harvesting time were associated with SSI after vein harvesting.
Leg-wound closure with triclosan-coated sutures in CABG patients reduces SSIs after open vein harvesting. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01212315).
European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery: official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery 02/2013; 44(5). DOI:10.1093/ejcts/ezt063 · 3.30 Impact Factor
World Journal of Surgery 07/2012; 36(10):2535-6. DOI:10.1007/s00268-012-1717-7 · 2.64 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Surgical-site infections (SSIs) increase morbidity and mortality in surgical patients and represent an economic burden to healthcare systems. Experiments have shown that triclosan-coated sutures (TCS) are beneficial in the prevention of SSI, although the results from individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are inconclusive. A meta-analysis of available RCTs was performed to evaluate the efficacy of TCS in the prevention of SSI.
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and internet-based trial registries for RCTs comparing the effect of TCS and conventional uncoated sutures on SSIs was conducted until June 2012. The primary outcome investigated was the incidence of SSI. Pooled relative risks with 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) were estimated with RevMan 5.1.6.
Seventeen RCTs involving 3720 participants were included. No heterogeneity of statistical significance across studies was observed. TCS showed a significant advantage in reducing the rate of SSI by 30 per cent (relative risk 0·70, 95 per cent c.i. 0·57 to 0·85; P < 0·001). Subgroup analyses revealed consistent results in favour of TCS in adult patients, abdominal procedures, and clean or clean-contaminated surgical wounds.
TCS demonstrated a significant beneficial effect in the prevention of SSI after surgery. Copyright © 2013 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
British Journal of Surgery 03/2013; 100(4):465-473. DOI:10.1002/bjs.9062 · 5.54 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.