Antibiotic coating of abdominal closure sutures and wound infection

Bacterial Biofilms on Implanted Suture Material Are a Cause of Surgical Site Infection

“…They found that coated suture material yielded an almost 97% reduction in the amount of recovered CFUs, although they did not specifically address possible biofilm formation, which in itself may result in decreased CFUs because of the poor culturability of bacteria in biofilm configuration. Some encouraging clinical results have also been obtained: Justinger et al [24] compared triclosan-coated polyglactin 910 suture versus uncoated polidioxanone suture use in 2,088 patients undergoing midline laparotomy. With similar patient characteristics in each group, they found a SSI rate of 10.8% when polidioxanone was used, but only 4.9% with the coated polyglactin 910.…”

Surgical Site Infections after Open Appendectomy and Effectiveness of Complex Approach to Their Prevention

“…Этот феномен лежит в основе концепции рассмотрения хирургической нити как импланта, в присутствии которого риск развития ИОХВ возрас-тает многократно [18,19]. Имеющиеся в настоящий момент экспериментальные и клинические иссле-дования свидетельствуют в пользу положительного потенциала нитей с триклозаном в снижении часто-ты ИОХВ в абдоминальной и торакальной хирургии при совместном их применении с АБП [20,21].…”

Triclosan coated sutures: an overview of safety and efficacy in reducing risk of surgical site infection

“…The results showed the decrease in number of SSIs (TCS: 4.9%, NTCS: 10.8%, P <0.001) for abdominal wall closure. 35 In another prospective comparative study in transverse laparotomy for hepatobiliary resections (n=839), TCS showed significant reduction in SSI compared to NTCS arm (4.3% vs. 9.2%, P = 0.05). 36 In spinal surgery, TCS found to be effective in reduction of wound infection (0.5% vs. 3.9%, p=0.020).…”