ArticleCureus2025
Adhesive Strips vs. Sutures in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Non-inferiority Analysis of Surgical Site Infections.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Surgical site infections (SSIs) continue to pose a significant challenge in spine surgery. Skin closure technique has been shown to impact SSI rates, with sutures traditionally considered the standard. Recently, alternative methods, such as adhesive strips, have gained attention for their potential advantages, including shorter operative times, fewer postoperative visits, and improved cosmetic outcomes. However, their efficacy in managing large surgical wounds, particularly in spine procedures, remains underexplored. This study compares SSI rates between sutures and adhesive strips in posterior one- and two-level lumbar spinal fusion using a non-inferiority design. Methods This single-center retrospective study evaluated SSI rates following lumbar spinal fusion using either sutures or adhesive strips for skin closure. Patients who underwent one- or two-level lumbar fusion via an open posterior approach between 2019 and 2022 were initially identified (n = 1,051). Following the application of predefined exclusion criteria, 997 patient records were eligible for review. Propensity score matching (PSM) was then employed to balance key covariates, such as age, sex, ASA classification, surgical time, use of drainage, and the number of levels fused, resulting in 608 patients evenly allocated into two groups. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained institutional database, and SSIs were classified using the German Krankenhaus Infektions Surveillance System (KISS). A non-inferiority margin of 3% (absolute risk difference) was applied to compare SSI rates. Statistical analyses included t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, chi-square tests, and a Wald test for non-inferiority, with the non-inferiority established if the upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) remained below the 3% margin. Results Following PSM, infection rates within a 30-day postoperative follow-up were 1.64% in the suture group and 1.97% in the adhesive strip group. A one-sided Wald test, using a 3% non-inferiority margin, yielded an absolute risk difference of 0.33% (SE = 1.1%; z = -2.47; one-sided p = 0.0067), with the upper bound of the 95% CI at 2.11%. Conclusion Adhesive strips demonstrated non-inferiority to sutures in terms of SSI rates following one- or two-level lumbar spinal fusion and may offer the added benefit of reduced operative time. However, further research is warranted to confirm these findings and support the broader implementation of adhesive strips in spinal fusion procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.