Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36561159›Full record

ArticleSpine surgery and related research2022

Barbed Suture versus Interrupted Suture in Posterior Cervical Spine Surgery: Are They Equivalent?

Alan R Tang, Anthony M Steinle, Hani Chanbour, Godwin Emeka-Ibe, Byron F Stephens, Scott L Zuckerman, Amir M Abtahi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Spine surgery and related research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alan R TangDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States.
Anthony M SteinleDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States.
Hani ChanbourDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States.
Godwin Emeka-IbeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States.
Byron F StephensDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States.
Scott L ZuckermanDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States.
Amir M AbtahiDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center · USNeurological Surgery · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Posterior cervical spine approaches have been associated with increased rates of wound complications compared to anterior approaches. While barbed suture wound closure for lumbar spine surgery has been shown to be safe and efficacious, there is no literature regarding its use in posterior cervical spine surgery. In a cohort of patients undergoing elective posterior cervical spine surgery, we sought to compare postoperative complication rates between barbed and traditional interrupted suture closure. Methods: A retrospective review of demographics, past medical history, and operative and postoperative variables collected from a prospective registry between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2020 was undertaken. All patients 18 years old and above undergoing elective posterior cervical fusion were included. The primary outcome of interest was wound complications, including surgical site infection (SSI), dehiscence, or hematoma. In addition, numerical rating scale (NRS) neck pain (NP), NRS arm pain (AP), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and operative time were collected. A variety of statistical tests were used to compare the two suture groups. Results: Of 117 patients undergoing posterior cervical fusion, 89 (76%) were closed with interrupted suture and 28 (24%) with barbed suture. The interrupted cohort were more likely to have >1 comorbidity (p<0.001), diabetes mellitus (p=0.013), and coronary artery disease (p=0.002). No difference in postoperative wound complications between interrupted/barbed sutures was observed after univariate (OR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.27-4.25, p=0.927) and multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.15-4.00, p=0.756). Univariate logistic regression revealed no differences in achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) NRS-NP (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.28-1.88, p=0.508) or NRS-AP (OR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.25-1.90, p=0.464) at 3 months between suture groups. The interrupted suture group was less likely to achieve MCID NDI at 3 months (OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.80, p=0.016). Conclusions: Barbed suture closure in posterior cervical spine surgery does not lead to higher rates of postoperative wound complications/SSI compared to traditional interrupted fascial closure.

Indexed as

barbed sutureinterrupted suturepatient-reported outcomespostoperative complicationswound closure

Identifiers

PMID36561159
PMCPMC9747217
OpenAlexW4293210746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.