Orthopaedic surgical site infections (SSI's) prolong total hospital stays by a median of 2 weeks per patient, approximately double re-hospitalization rates, and increase healthcare costs by more than 300%. Patients with orthopaedic SSI's have significant reductions in their health-related quality of life. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare differences in outcomes between use of sutures and non-absorbable staples for closure of orthopaedic surgical wounds in adults. The primary outcomes were rates of superficial and deep SSI. Secondary outcomes included wound dehiscence, length of hospital stay, patient satisfaction and pain during removal of closure material. Data sources including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, National Institute for Health and Research, UK clinical trials gateway were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCT's) meeting inclusion criteria. Sixteen RCT's published between 1987 and 2017 were included. Overall, wound infection outcomes (superficial and deep infections combined) showed no statistically significant difference between closure with staples compared with sutures with arelative risk of 1.17 (95% CI 0.59–2.30, p=0.66). A subgroup was performed specific to hip wound infection outcomes. Interestingly, a sensitivity analysis demonstrated sutures to be statistically favourable (p=0.04) in terms of hip wound infection outcomes. There was no statistically significant difference among secondary outcomes between sutures and staple groups. Overall it appears the choice of sutures or staples in closure of orthopaedic wounds has no effect on wound complications. However, caution is needed in applying the findings to different population groups due to heterogeneity across studies.