The knotless barbed suture is an innovative type of suture that can accelerate the placement of sutures and eliminate knot tying. However, the outcomes of previous studies are still confounding. This study reviewed the application of different types of barbed sutures in different surgeries. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the application of barbed sutures up to Feb. 2015. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis was performed. Seventeen RCTs (low to moderate risk of bias) involving 1992 patients were included. Compared with conventional sutures, the barbed suture could reduce suture time (SMD=−0.95, 95%CI −1.43 to −0.46, P = 0.0001) and the operative time (SMD=−0.28, 95%CI −0.46 to −0.10, P = 0.003), not significantly increase the estimated blood loss (SMD=−0.09, 95%CI −0.52 to 0.35, P = 0.70), but could lead to more postoperative complications (OR = 1.43, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.96, P = 0.03), These results varied in subgroups. Thus, barbed sutures are effective in reducing the suture and operative time, but the safety evidences are still not sufficient. It need be evaluated based on special surgeries and suture types before put into clinical practice.

As one of the earliest surgeries applying knotless barbed suture, the minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) was reported to have various effects on the patients and the surgeons. This study reviewed the available evidence about the efficacy and safety of barbed sutures in MIRP. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Register of Clinical Studies, PubMed, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies addressing the application of barbed sutures and conventional sutures in MIRP (until August 2016). Quality assessment was performed according to Cochrane recommendations. The data were analyzed using Review Manager (Version 5.3), and sensitivity analysis was performed by sequentially omitting each study. A total of 12 studies, including three RCTs (low to moderate risk of bias, 211 patients) and nine cohort studies (low to moderate risk of bias, 698 patients), fulfilled the study criteria. The pooling of trials did not show statistical difference. Pooling data of cohort studies showed that suture time [mean difference (MD) = -8.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -12.60 to -4.43, p < 0.0001] and length of hospital stay (MD = -0.96, 95% CI = -1.80 to -0.11, p = 0.03) were significantly shorter in the barbed group. Results of continence rate varied according to different studies. Subgroup analysis by type of MIRP suggested that patients who underwent barbed suture during robot-assisted surgeries had a shorter hospital stay (MD = -1.13, 95% CI = -1.82 to -0.45, p = 0.001). During the laparoscopic surgery, patients in the barbed suture group had fewer postoperative complications [odds ratio = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.08-0.98, p = 0.05). However, more evidence is needed to validate this state-of-the-art technology.

No abstract

Background: Most cases of bicruciate knee dislocation (KD) with associated posteromedial disruption (KD-IIIM) are reducible, but some cannot be reduced by closed reduction because of soft tissue incarceration. Purpose: To compare the clinical characteristics and functional outcomes of KD-IIIM injuries in patients with or without incarceration of soft tissue requiring open or arthroscopic reduction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This retrospective cohort study of patients with KD was conducted between January 2013 and December 2017 at a single large institution. We applied a 1:2 matching ratio between patients with irreducible KD-IIIM injuries (irreducible group; n = 14) and those with reducible KD-IIIM injuries (control group; n = 28). There were 13 patients in the irreducible group and 25 in the control group who completed follow-up (≥2 years) and were included in our analysis. The efficacy of treatment in patients with KD was evaluated based on range of motion, the Tegner score, the Lysholm score, and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. Results: At the end of follow-up, the mean Tegner score was 4.5 (range, 4-6), the mean Lysholm score was 79.2 (range, 60-95), and the mean IKDC score was 78.6 (range, 60.9-95.4) in the irreducible group. The respective results in the control group were 4.6 (range, 3-8), 83.1 (range, 39-100), and 80.6 (range, 42.5-96.6). These scores did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Similarly, mean range of motion was similar between groups (irreducible, 118.1°; control, 124.8°). In the irreducible group, the acute subgroup showed significantly higher Lysholm and IKDC scores than the chronic subgroup, while the acute and chronic subgroups in the control group showed no significant differences in these respective outcome scores. Conclusion: In the present study, the treatment of irreducible KD led to similar functional outcomes compared with reducible KD. However, the treatment of chronic irreducible KD led to worse outcomes compared with acute irreducible KD, and therefore, urgent reduction is recommended in these patients.

Background: It is clear that the anterolateral ligament has an important role in rotational knee stability. However, whether patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) can benefit from anterolateral augmentation (ALA) is still controversial. Purpose: To compare the effects of isolated ACLR versus ACLR combined with ALA (ACLR+ALA) on clinical outcomes and knee stability. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: The methodology followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was undertaken to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing isolated ACLR with ACLR+ALA for the treatment of ACL injuries in the last 15 years. The Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool and the revised Jadad scale were utilized by 2 independent reviewers to determine the quality of RCTs. Relevant data were extracted and compared between procedures, and heterogeneity across the RCTs was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Results: The initial search yielded 849 articles. A total of 14 studies (1850 patients; 941 ACLR and 909 ACLR+ALA) satisfied the eligibility criteria for the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the procedures in terms of patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee score, Tegner score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) or return-to-sport rates. However, patients who underwent ACLR+ALA had better knee stability based on the pivot-shift test (risk ratio [RR], 1.06 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.10]; P = .0008), Lachman test (RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07]; P = .04), and side-to-side difference in anterior laxity (standardized mean difference, –0.55 [95% CI, –0.98 to –0.12]; P = .01) as well as a lower incidence of graft failure (RR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.45]; P < .01) compared with patients who underwent isolated ACLR. Conclusion: ALA can be considered as a reinforcement of ACLR to improve anteroposterior and anterolateral rotational stability of the knee and reduce the risk of failure. The patient-reported outcomes of isolated ACLR were similar to those of ACLR+ALA, and both procedures provided improved knee function.