Barbed sutures versus conventional sutures for wound closure in spine surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Suturing techniques for wound closure in spine surgeries play a critical role in patient outcomes, including wound healing, reintervention, and risk of complications. Barbed sutures, characterized by their self-anchoring properties, have emerged as a potential alternative to conventional sutures in various surgical disciplines. While previous studies have underscored their efficacy and safety in spine surgeries, no meta-analysis has been conducted. Therefore, we are undertaking this study. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a literature search on electronic databases to obtain the relevant studies until May 5, 2024. Our primary outcomes were operative time, wound closure time, and postoperative wound complications like seroma or hematoma formation and wound infection. The secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, reintervention rates, and costs. Data was pooled using a random effects model. We included seven eligible studies with a total of 8645 patients. Our meta-analysis showed that barbed sutures had shorter operative time and wound closure time compared to conventional sutures (MD -20.13 min, 95% CI [-28.47, -11.78], P < 0.001) and (MD -16.36 min, 95% CI [-20.9, -11.82], P < 0.001), respectively. Both suturing techniques showed comparable results in terms of overall postoperative wound complications (RR 0.83, 95% CI [0.60, 1.14], P = 0.25), postoperative infections (RR 0.59, 95% CI [0.33, 1.06], P = 0.08), length of hospital stay (MD -0.26 day, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.22], P = 0.28), rates of reintervention between the two groups (RR 0.99, 95% CI [0.48, 2.05], P = 0.98). Barbed sutures in spine surgeries are associated with significantly shortened wound closure and operative times. However, high-quality RCT’s with long-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness assessment are required to support the evidence.