Journal Summary 1

Intraoperative Handling and Wound Healing: Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Coated VICRYL^® Plus Antibacterial Suture (Coated Polyglactin 910 Suture With Triclosan) With Coated VICRYL^® Suture (Coated Polyglactin 910 Suture)

Coated polyglactin 910 suture with triclosan was developed to provide the suture material with antibacterial activity against the common putative pathogens that cause surgical site infections (SSI).

This prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label, comparative, single-center study was designed to evaluate the physical and functional properties of coated polyglactin 910 suture with triclosan compared to the traditional coated polyglactin 910 suture in 147 pediatric patients undergoing general surgical procedures. Scores for intraoperative handling were “very good” or “excellent” in more than 94% of responses for both sutures. While no significant differences were observed between the sutures, more “excellent” scores were recorded for coated polyglactin 910 suture with triclosan (71% vs 59% with coated polyglactin 910 suture). Wound-handling parameters were similar between the treatment groups, with the exception of pain. Specifically, significantly fewer patients in the coated polyglactin 910 suture with triclosan group reported pain on Day 1 compared with the traditional suture group (68% vs 89%; p=0.01). This decrease in postoperative pain may be due to a reduced bacterial colonization of the suture and a diminished inflammatory response, a result of the triclosan antimicrobial activity. Importantly, overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between the treatment groups (17% [coated polyglactin 910 suture with triclosan] and 20% [traditional coated polyglactin 910 suture]), and none were judged to be device-related. In summary, this study indicated that the addition of the antimicrobial agent triclosan did not change the familiar characteristics of the coated polyglactin 910 suture, and the coated polyglactin 910 suture with triclosan may represent a useful alternative, especially in patients at an increased risk of developing SSI.

Ford HR, Jones P, Gaines B, Reblock K, Simpkins DL. Surgical Infections. 2005;6:313-321.

Read full text>