Sutures versus staples for wound closure in orthopaedic surgery: a randomized controlled trial

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Gregory Stranges³  Saam Morshed¹  Jeff Leiter³  James Vernon²  Jesse A Shantz¹ 

[1] Orthopaedic Trauma Institute at San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, 2550 23rd Street, Building 9, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA;Section of Orthopaedics, Dunedin School of Medicine, PO Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand;Section of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Manitoba, AD-401, 820 Sherbrook St., Winnipeg, MB, R3A 1R9, Canada

关键词: Surgical site infection;    Surgical wound complications;    Staples;    Sutures;    Orthopaedic surgery;    Wound closure;   

Others  :  1149551
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-13-89

 received in 2012-02-06, accepted in 2012-05-17,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

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)

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Slade Shantz et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR: Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999, 20(4):250-278. quiz 279–280
• [2]Kirkland KB, Briggs JP, Trivette SL, Wilkinson WE, Sexton DJ: The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999, 20(11):725-730.
• [3]Whitehouse JD, Friedman ND, Kirkland KB, Richardson WJ, Sexton DJ: The impact of surgical-site infections following orthopedic surgery at a community hospital and a university hospital: adverse quality of life, excess length of stay, and extra cost. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002, 23(4):183-189.
• [4]Roth JH, Windle BH: Staple versus suture closure of skin incisions in a pig model. Can J Surg 1988, 31(1):19-20.
• [5]Rousseau JA, Girard K, Turcot-Lemay L, Thomas N: A randomized study comparing skin closure in cesarean sections: staples vs subcuticular sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009, 200(3):265. e261-264
• [6]Khan AN, Dayan PS, Miller S, Rosen M, Rubin DH: Cosmetic outcome of scalp wound closure with staples in the pediatric emergency department: a prospective, randomized trial. Pediatr Emerg Care 2002, 18(3):171-173.
• [7]Murphy M, Prendergast P, Rice J: Comparison of clips versus sutures in orthopaedic wound closure. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 2004, 14(1):16-18.
• [8]Singh B, Mowbray M, Nunn G, Mearns S: Closure of hip wound, clips or subcuticular sutures: does it make a difference? European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 2006, 16(2):124-129.
• [9]Johnson RG, Cohn WE, Thurer RL, McCarthy JR, Sirois CA, Weintraub RM: Cutaneous closure after cardiac operations: a controlled, randomized, prospective comparison of intradermal versus staple closures. Ann Surg 1997, 226(5):606-612.
• [10]Smith TO, Sexton D, Mann C, Donell S: Sutures versus staples for skin closure in orthopaedic surgery: meta-analysis. BMJ 2010, 340:c1199.
• [11]Stockley I, Elson RA: Skin closure using staples and nylon sutures: a comparison of results. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1987, 69(2):76-78.
• [12]Clayer M, Southwood RT: Comparative study of skin closure in hip surgery. Aust N Z J Surg 1991, 61(5):363-365.
• [13]Shetty AA, Kumar VS, Morgan-Hough C, Georgeu GA, James KD, Nicholl JE: Comparing wound complication rates following closure of hip wounds with metallic skin staples or subcuticular vicryl suture: a prospective randomised trial. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2004, 12(2):191-193.
• [14]Khan RJ, Fick D, Yao F, Tang K, Hurworth M, Nivbrant B, Wood D: A comparison of three methods of wound closure following arthroplasty: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006, 88(2):238-242.