Appendectomy Skin Closure Technique, Randomized Controlled Trial: Changing Paradigms (ASC)

Association between skin suture devices and incidence of incisional surgical site infection after gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common complications after abdominal surgery.

AIM

To compare which suture devices could reduce the incidence of incisional surgical site infections (SSIs) after gastrointestinal surgery using a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

METHODS

The CENTRAL, PubMed, and ICHUSHI-Web databases were searched from January 1st, 2000, to December 31st, 2022, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the incidence of incisional SSI after gastrointestinal surgery among patients treated with different surgical suture devices, including non-absorbable sutures, absorbable sutures, skin staplers, and tissue adhesives (last searched in August 23th, 2023). The risk of bias was assessed using the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. To estimate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) for each comparison, a fixed-effect inverse-variance model based on the Mantel-Haenszel approach was employed.

FINDINGS

A total of 18 RCTs with 5496 patients were included in this study. The overall SSIs in absorbable sutures were significantly lower than those in skin staplers (OR: 0.77; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.63-0.95) and non-absorbable sutures (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39-0.99), whereas SSIs in absorbable sutures were not significantly different from the SSIs in tissue adhesive. The highest P-score was 0.91 for absorbable sutures. A funnel plot for estimating the heterogeneity of the studies revealed that a publication bias would be minimal (Egger test, P = 0.271).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that absorbable sutures reduced incisional SSIs in gastrointestinal surgical operations compared to any other suture devices.

Surgical Site Infection Following Single-Port Appendectomy: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common postoperative complications after appendectomy leading to recurrent surgery, prolonged hospital stay, and the use of antibiotics. Numerous studies and meta-analyses have been published on the effect of open versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) reporting faster postoperative recovery and less postoperative pain for CLA. A development from CLA has been the single-port appendectomy (SPA), associated with a better cosmesis but seemingly having a higher risk of wound infections. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to investigate whether reduced port or SPA alters the ratio of SSIs.

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were screened for suitable articles. All articles published between January 1, 2002, and March 23, 2022, were included. Articles regarding children below the age of 18 were excluded as well as manuscripts that investigated solemnly open appendectomies. Articles were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent authors. Incidence of SSI was the primary outcome. Duration of operation and length of hospital stay were defined as secondary outcomes.

Results

A total of 25 studies were found through a database search describing 5484 patients. A total of 2749 patients received SPA and 2735 received CLA. There was no statistical difference in the rate of SSI (P = 0.98). A total of 22 studies including 4699 patients reported the duration of operation (2223 SPA and 2476 CLA). There was a significantly shorter operation time seen in CLA. The length of hospital stay was reported in 23 studies (4735 patients: 2235 SPA and 2500 CLA). A shorter hospital stay was seen in the SPA group (P < 0.00001). Separately performed analysis of randomized controlled trials could not confirm this effect (P = 0.29).

Discussion

SPA is an equally safe procedure considering SSI compared to CLA and does not lead to an increased risk of SSI. A longer operation time for SPA and a minor difference in the length of stay does lead to the use of SPA in selected patients only.

Prospective randomized trial of skin closure for pacemaker implantation: absorbable vs. non-absorbable suture : PRO-PACE

BACKGROUND

Pacemaker implantations have been performed for > 50 years, reaching 1.25 million implants worldwide per year. Despite this, only few randomized studies exist regarding technical aspects of the implantation procedure-in particular, wound closure. Accordingly, the authors compared absorbable vs. non-absorbable suture regarding wound healing.

METHODS

Consecutive patients scheduled for de novo pacemaker implantation without defibrillation therapy were prospectively randomized into two groups: non-absorbable (Prolene®, Ethicon Inc.) or absorbable suture (Monocryl®, Ethicon Inc.). The wound was systematically assessed for cosmetic outcome at 1 day, 6 weeks, and 1 year post implantation using the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS). Adverse events noted included bleeding, pocket hematoma, infection, suture insufficiency, and revision surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients (mean age: 79 ± 10 years, n = 60 male) were randomized into the two groups. Of these, 105 completed follow-up (lost to follow-up: 7.9%). Groups were comparable for clinical characteristics or use of oral anticoagulants. There was no difference in cosmetic outcome and incidence of adverse events at any follow-up visit. POSAS scores were: 1 day: 1.4 ± 0.4 vs. 1.3 ± 0.4, P = 0.44, 6 weeks: 1.4 ± 0.6 vs. 1.4 ± 0.7, P = 0.57; 1 year: 1.4 ± 1.4 vs. 2.1 ± 3, P = 0.60. No pocket hematoma or infection occurred in either group. No additional surgery was necessary for local findings. Retrospectively, scar development was straight in the Prolene® group and slightly wavy with Monocryl®.

CONCLUSION

Suture material does not influence wound healing as represented by the cosmetic result and the occurrence of adverse events. The choice of suture material used should be left to the physician's discretion.

A meta-analysis on continuous versus interrupted skin closure following appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review was to analyse RCTs comparing wound-related outcomes between continuous subcuticular and interrupted transdermal wound closures for open appendicectomies in all age groups.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in April 2020 (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, PROSPERO, Google Scholar, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). RCTs without restrictions on study language, year, status of publication, and patient age were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk-of-bias tool for RCTs. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) for binary and continuous variables were calculated using random-effects models. A summary-of-findings table was generated to assess the level of evidence.

RESULTS

Eleven trials were included (1781 patients analysed, 891 in continuous and 890 in interrupted groups). The overall rate of wound infection was 7.1 per cent. There was no significant difference in the risk of wound infection (11 trials, 1781 patients; RR 1.13, 95 per cent c.i. 0.77 to 1.66; P = 0.530) or wound exploration (7 trials, 1129 patients; RR 0.74, 0.41 to 1.34, P = 0.320) between the two groups. Continuous wound closure had a significantly reduced risk of wound dehiscence (6 trials, 865 patients; RR 0.16, 0.05 to 0.50; P = 0.002) and smaller wound scar (3 trials, 417 patients; MD -2.11 (95 per cent c.i. -2.57 to -1.66) mm; P < 0.001). The absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat for wound dehiscence were 6.1 per cent and 16 respectively. There was no significant statistical heterogeneity for all outcomes (I2 0-15 per cent, χ2 P > 0.100). Most RCTs had a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Continuous subcuticular open appendicectomy wound closure is not associated with an increased risk of wound infection and exploration. This method of closure has a reduced risk of wound dehiscence and better cosmetic outcomes.

The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infections (SSIs) were published in Japanese by the Japan Society for Surgical Infection in 2018. This is a summary of these guidelines for medical professionals worldwide.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenterological SSIs, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Modifications were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the general public and relevant medical societies.

RESULTS

There were 44 questions prepared in seven subject areas, for which 51 recommendations were made. The seven subject areas were: definition and etiology, diagnosis, preoperative management, prophylactic antibiotics, intraoperative management, perioperative management, and wound management. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information. The final version of the recommendations was published in 2018, in Japanese.

CONCLUSIONS

The Japanese Guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological SSI were published in 2018 to provide useful information for clinicians and improve the clinical outcome of patients.

Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is still challenging and some controversies on its management are still present among different settings and practice patterns worldwide. In July 2015, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) organized in Jerusalem the first consensus conference on the diagnosis and treatment of AA in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines. An updated consensus conference took place in Nijemegen in June 2019 and the guidelines have now been updated in order to provide evidence-based statements and recommendations in keeping with varying clinical practice: use of clinical scores and imaging in diagnosing AA, indications and timing for surgery, use of non-operative management and antibiotics, laparoscopy and surgical techniques, intra-operative scoring, and peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

METHODS

This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of AA. Literature search has been updated up to 2019 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. The statements were voted, eventually modified, and finally approved by the participants to the consensus conference and by the board of co-authors, using a Delphi methodology for voting whenever there was controversy on a statement or a recommendation. Several tables highlighting the research topics and questions, search syntaxes, and the statements and the WSES evidence-based recommendations are provided. Finally, two different practical clinical algorithms are provided in the form of a flow chart for both adults and pediatric (< 16 years old) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2020 WSES guidelines on AA aim to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) non-operative management for uncomplicated AA, (3) timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, (4) surgical treatment, (5) intra-operative grading of AA, (6) ,management of perforated AA with phlegmon or abscess, and (7) peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

Subcuticular sutures for skin closure in non-obstetric surgery

BACKGROUND

Following surgery, surgical wounds can be closed using a variety of devices including sutures (subcuticular or transdermal), staples and tissue adhesives. Subcuticular sutures are intradermal stitches (placed immediately below the epidermal layer). The increased availability of synthetic absorbable filaments (stitches which are absorbed by the body and do not have to be removed) has led to an increased use of subcuticular sutures. However, in non-obstetric surgery, there is still controversy about whether subcuticular sutures increase the incidence of wound complications.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and acceptability of subcuticular sutures for skin closure in non-obstetric surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials which compared subcuticular sutures with any other methods for skin closure in non-obstetric surgery were included in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials, extracted data and carried out risk of bias and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 studies (7487 participants); 11 included trials had more than two arms. Most trials had poorly-reported methodology, meaning that it is unclear whether they were at high risk of bias. Most trials compared subcuticular sutures with transdermal sutures, skin staples or tissue adhesives. Most outcomes prespecified in the review protocol were reported. The certainty of evidence varied from high to very low in the comparisons of subcuticular sutures with transdermal sutures or staples and tissue adhesives; the certainty of the evidence for the comparison with surgical tapes and zippers was low to very low. Most evidence was downgraded for imprecision or risk of bias. Although the majority of studies enrolled people who underwent CDC class 1 (clean) surgeries, two-thirds of participants were enrolled in studies which included CDC class 2 to 4 surgeries, such as appendectomies and gastrointestinal surgeries. Most participants were adults in a hospital setting. Subcuticular sutures versus transdermal sutures There may be little difference in the incidence of SSI (risk ratio (RR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.52; 3107 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether subcuticular sutures reduce wound complications (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.71; 1489 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Subcuticular sutures probably improve patient satisfaction (score from 1 to 10) (at 30 days; MD 1.60, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.88; 290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Wound closure time is probably longer when subcuticular sutures are used (MD 5.81 minutes; 95% CI 5.13 to 6.49 minutes; 585 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Subcuticular sutures versus skin staples There is moderate-certainty evidence that, when compared with skin staples, subcuticular sutures probably have little effect on SSI (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.01; 4163 participants); but probably decrease the incidence of wound complications (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.98; 2973 participants). Subcuticular sutures are associated with slightly higher patient satisfaction (score from 1 to 5) (MD 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.30; 1232 participants; high-certainty evidence). Wound closure time may also be longer compared with staples (MD 0.30 to 5.50 minutes; 1384 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subcuticular sutures versus tissue adhesives, surgical tapes and zippers There is moderate-certainty evidence showing no clear difference in the incidence of SSI between participants treated with subcuticular sutures and those treated with tissue adhesives (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.45; 869 participants). There is also no clear difference in the incidence of wound complications (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.11; 1058 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subcuticular sutures may also achieve lower patient satisfaction ratings (score from 1 to 10) (MD -2.05, 95% CI -3.05 to -1.05; 131 participants) (low-certainty evidence). In terms of SSI incidence, the evidence is uncertain when subcuticular sutures are compared with surgical tapes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.27; 354 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or surgical zippers (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.08 to 8.48; 424 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little difference in the incidence of wound complications between participants treated with subcuticular sutures and those treated with surgical tapes (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.34; 492 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether subcuticular sutures reduce the risk of wound complications compared with surgical zippers (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.04; 424 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether it takes longer to close a wound with subcuticular sutures compared with tissue adhesives (MD -0.34 to 10.39 minutes; 895 participants), surgical tapes (MD 0.74 to 6.36 minutes; 169 participants) or zippers (MD 4.38 to 8.25 minutes; 424 participants) (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported results for patient satisfaction compared with surgical tapes or zippers.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear difference in the incidence of SSI for subcuticular sutures in comparison with any other skin closure methods. Subcuticular sutures probably reduce wound complications compared with staples, and probably improve patient satisfaction compared with transdermal sutures or staples. However, tissue adhesives may improve patient satisfaction compared with subcuticular sutures, and transdermal sutures and skin staples may be quicker to apply than subcuticular sutures. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low; evidence for almost all comparisons was subject to some limitations. There seems to be no need for additional new trials to explore the comparison with staples because there are high-quality studies with large sample sizes and some ongoing studies. However, there is a need for studies exploring the comparisons with transdermal sutures, tissue adhesives, tapes and zippers, with high-quality studies and large sample sizes, including long-term assessments.