Abstract
Background
Surgical wound closure is not the surgeon”s favorite part of the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery however it has vital rule in the success of surgery. Knee arthoplasty wounds are known to be more prone to infection, breakdown or delayed healing compared to hip arthroplasty wounds, and this might be explained by the increased tensile force applied on the wound with knee movement. This effect is magnified by the enhanced recovery protocols which aim to obtain high early range of movement. Most of the literature concluded that there is no difference between different closure methods
Objectives
We conducted an independent study comparing the complication rate associated with using barbed suture (Quill-Ethicon), Vicryl Rapide (polyglactins910-Ethicon) and skin staples for wound closure following TKA
Study Design & Methods
Retrospective study where the study group included all the patients admitted to our unit for elective primary knee arthroplasty in 2015, we excluded patients admitted for partial knee arthroplasty, revision knee arthroplasty or arthroplasty for treatment of acute trauma due to the relatively higher complication rates. All the patients notes were reviewed to identify wound related problems such as wound dehiscence, wound infection and delayed healing (defined as delayed wound healing more than 6 weeks)
Results
327 patients were included in this study; 151 in Quill group, 99 in staples group and 77 in the last group where the wound closed with Rapide. We identified 9 (5.9%) cases of wound dehiscence in the Quill group, 3 cases of wound dehiscence in each of other two groups (3.8%) with Rapide and (3%) with staples. On the other hand superficial wound infection was higher with staples with 6 (6%) cases of wound infection compared to the other groups, wound infection occurred in 2 patients (2.5%) with Rapide and 5 patients (3.3%) in the Quill”s group. Most of the delayed wound healing happened after using Quill where it is reported in 5 patients (3.3%) and the lowest was in staples group with 1 patient (1%) and slightly higher percentage in Rapide group 2 patients (2.5%). The total figure of wound related problems was the highest in Quill”s group with 19 reported cases (12.5%), lower in staples” group with 10 cases (1.1%) and the lowest in Rapide”s group with 7 cases (9%)
Conclusions
Our study showed different results to the reported literature suggesting that each closure method has its own advantages and disadvantages. Quill is quick, knotless and absorbable but on the other side it is significantly more expensive than other alternatives and it is associated with the highest complication rates. On the other hand Rapide is cheap absorbable alternative with the lowest percentage of wound problems but on the negative side it is time consuming. Finally staples method is the quickest, relatively cheap and rarely associated with wound dehiscence but it is not absorbable which might cause inconvenience to patients
