Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29909494›Full record

SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2018

The efficacy and safety of knotless barbed sutures in total joint arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.

Yanhong Han, Weiyi Yang, Jianke Pan, Lingfeng Zeng, Guihong Liang, Jiongtong Lin, Minghui Luo, Da Guo, Jun Liu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Yanhong HanSecond School of Clinical Medicine, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510405, China.
Weiyi YangDepartment of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 111 Dade Road, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, China.
Jianke PanDepartment of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 111 Dade Road, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, China.
Lingfeng ZengDepartment of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 111 Dade Road, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, China.
Guihong LiangDepartment of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 111 Dade Road, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, China.
Jiongtong LinSecond School of Clinical Medicine, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510405, China.
Minghui LuoDepartment of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 111 Dade Road, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, China.
Da GuoDepartment of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 111 Dade Road, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, China.
Jun LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 111 Dade Road, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, China. liujun3040@126.com.

Funding

Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Guangdong Province No.20164020Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Guangdong Province No.20181119Doctoral Fund of Ministry of Education of China No.20124425110004Medical Scientific Research Foundation of Guangdong Province No.A2017215National Ministry of Industry and the State Health Planning Commission "orthopedic surgery robot application center" construction projects No.2017MHDOSR1008National Natural Science Foundation of China No.81273781National Natural Science Foundation of China No.81473698Project of Guangdong Provincial Department of Finance No.[2014]157Project of Guangdong Provincial Department of Finance No.[2018]8Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province No.2012B061700036Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province No.2012B061700037Science and Technology Research Project of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine No.YK2013B2N19Science and Technology Research Project of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine No.YN2015MS15TCM Standardization Projects of State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of China No. SATCM-2015-BZ115TCM Standardization Projects of State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of China No.SATCM-2015-BZ173
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe knotless barbed sutures (KBS) are an innovative type of suture that can accelerate the placement of sutures and eliminate knot tying. Whether the KBS are safe and efficient in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate its efficacy and safety.

methodsRandomized-controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to October 2017. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess methodological quality. The statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3.5 software.

resultsA total of five RCTs (600 participants) were included in our meta-analysis. The results showed that KBS reduced wound suture time (MD - 4.51, 95% CI - 5.37 to - 3.66, P < 0.00001) and the wound suture cost (MD - 282.63, 95% CI - 445.32 to - 119.95, P < 0.00001), and did not significantly increase the rate of complications (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42-1.39, P = 0.13) or intraoperative events (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.04-17.28, P = 0.92). There were no significant differences in ROM at postoperative 6 weeks and 3 months (MD - 0.74, 95% CI - 4.19 to 2.71, P = 0.67; MD - 0.30, 95% CI - 2.62 to 2.02, P = 0.80; respectively).

conclusionOur findings suggest that KBS are a safe and effective method for TJA. Given the possible biases, adequately powered and better designed studies with longer follow-up are required to reach a firmer conclusion.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeSuturesEquipment DesignHumansKnee JointOperative TimePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRange of Motion, ArticularKnotless barbed suturesKnotted traditional suturesRandomized control trials, meta-analysisTotal joint arthroplasties

Identifiers

PMID29909494
PMCPMC6132945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.