You are about to leave jnjmedtech.com. By clicking to continue, you will be taken to a web site governed by their own Legal and Privacy Policies.
Watch real stories about real SSI events
More stories
Hear from patients and experts
Real Patient Stories
SSIs can be life-changing. Patients who have experienced them inspire us to create innovative ways to address SSI risk, like Plus Antibacterial Sutures.
Doctors’ Perspectives
Healthcare professionals are always mindful about the risk of SSIs. Hear about their experiences and what they are doing to protect their patients.
Share your SSI story
Patients’ experiences are an inspiration to us at Ethicon, as we strive to reduce the risk factors associated with SSIs. We hope you’ll consider sharing your story and continue to inspire others with your voice.
Plus Antibacterial Sutures and SSI
Sutures, like all implants, can increase the risk of infection. Plus Antibacterial Sutures are effective against the most common pathogens associated with SSIs in an in vitro study.a,b
Barbed sutures with Plus technology
STRATAFIX™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Devices are proven in vivo to kill bacteria on the suture known to be associated with SSIs.
Skin closure protection
DERMABOND™ PRINEO™ Skin Closure System provides a flexible microbial barrier that is proven 99% effective against organisms commonly responsible for SSIs.d,e
SSIs can have catastrophic consequences
SSIs are common and costly
In the US, there are 780,000+ cases per year, costing an additional $3.5-$10 billion. SSIs occur in 2%-5% of patients undergoing surgery—approximately 160,000 to 300,000 each year in the US.3-5
SSIs are common and costly
Patients with SSIs are 5 times more likely to be readmitted to the hospital and 2 times more likely to die.3
Bacterial colonization of the suture is a known SSI risk factor
Sutures–like all implanted materials–can be a nidus for SSI because they reduce the amount of bacteria needed to cause infection. Plus Sutures are the only intervention that can address bacterial colonization of the suture. If you’re not using antibacterial sutures, you’re not addressing this risk factor.6,7
SSI prevention is key in cutting costs
Economic analysis estimated that payers would avoid $1036-$1170 in superficial and deep-incisional SSI-related costs per patient over 12 months if triclosan-coated sutures were used in colorectal surgery vs traditional closure.8,9,b,c
Featured Wound Closure Products
Plus Antibacterial Sutures
Plus Sutures are the only triclosan-coated sutures commercially available worldwide—and are backed by a large body of evidence and endorsed by a growing number of health authorities around the world. Meta-analysis showed a 28% reduction in SSI risk with the use of triclosan-coated sutures.7,8,10-21,d,e
STRATAFIX™ Knotless Tissue Control Devices
STRATAFIX™ is the only commercially available barbed suture with triclosan. And like Plus Suture, it is backed by a large body of evidence and health authority endorsements. Meta-analysis showed a 28% reduction in SSI risk with the use of triclosan-coated sutures.7-22,d-g
DERMABOND® PRINEO® Skin Closure System
DERMABOND™ PRINEO™ System creates a watertight seal, creating a barrier to water and bacteria entering the wound. The microbial barrier is proven 99% effective through 72 hours in vitro.h DERMABOND™ PRINEO™ System is demonstrated in vitro to kill 99.99% of bacteria (MRSA, MRSE, and E. coli) on direct contact.23-26,i
Ethicon Wound Closure Portfolio
Ethicon is the global leader in wound closure technology, each innovation designed to improve efficiency for surgeons and hospitals and outcomes for patients.
References
a. As shown in coronary artery bypass surgery.
b. Median costs estimated to be avoided per patient for commercial payers and Medicare were $1170 (95% CI, $146–$4884) and $1036 (95% CI, $111–$4823), respectively.
c. Over 12 months as projected in a peer-reviewed economic analysis comparing triclosan-treated sutures and traditional wound closure methods. Median costs estimated to be avoided per patient for commercial payers and Medicare were $809 (95% CI, $26–$4481) and $870 (95% CI, $33–$4624), respectively.
d. In a meta-analysis that included 21 RCTs, 6462 patients, 95% Cl: (14, 40%), P<0.001.
e. All triclosan-coated sutures in these RCTs were Ethicon Plus Antibacterial Sutures (MONOCRYL™ Plus Antibacterial (poliglecaprone 25) Suture, Coated VICRYL™ Plus Antibacterial (polyglactin 910) Suture, and PDS™ Plus Antibacterial (polydioxanone) Suture).
f. Refers only to STRATAFIX™ Symmetric PDS™ Plus, STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus and STRATAFIX™ Spiral Monocryl™ Plus.
g. Meta-analysis only included traditional (non-barbed) sutures.
h. As seen in vitro.
i. Clinical significance unknown.
1. Plus Suture Cost Analysis. 2019. Ethicon, Inc.
2. de Lissovoy G, Pan F, Patkar A, et al. Surgical Site Infection Incidence and Burden Assessment Using Multi-institutional Real-world Data. Poster presented at International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 14th Annual European Congress; November 5-8, 2011; Madrid, Spain.
3. World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines for Safe Surgery, 2009.
4. Thompson KM, Oldenberg WA, Deschamps C, Rupp WC, Smith CD. Chasing zero: The drive to eliminate surgical site infections. Ann Surg. 2011;254:430-437.
5. Anderson DJ, Podgorny K, Berrios-Torres SI, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(6):605-627.
6. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(4):247-278.
7. Edmiston CE, Seabrook GR, Goheen MP, et al. Bacterial adherence to surgical sutures: can antibacterial-coated sutures reduce the risk of microbial contamination? J Am Col Surg. 2006;203:481-489.
8. Edmiston CE, Daoud FC, Leaper D. Is there an evidence-based argument for embracing an antimicrobial (triclosan)-coated suture technology to reduce the risk for surgical-site infections?: A meta-analysis. Surgery. 2013;154:89-100.
9. Leaper DJ, Holy CE, Spencer M, Chitnis A, Hogan A, Wright GWJ, Chen BPH, Edmiston CE, Assessment of the Risk and Economic Burden of Surgical Site Infection Following Colorectal Surgery Using a US Longitudinal Database: Is There a Role for Innovative Antimicrobial Wound Closure Technology to Reduce the Risk of Infection? Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2020; DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000001799
10. de Jonge SW, Atema JJ, Solomkin JS, Boermeester MA. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of triclosan-coated sutures for the prevention of surgical-site infection. Br J Surg. 2017;104(2):e118-e133.
11. Leaper DJ, Edmiston CE Jr, Holy CE. Meta-analysis of the potential economic impact following introduction of absorbable antimicrobial sutures. Br J Surg. 2017;104(2):e134-e144.
12. Apisarnthanarak A, Singh N, Bandong AN, et al. Triclosan-coated sutures reduce the risk of surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36:169-179.
13. Chang WK, Srinivasa S, Morton R, et al. Triclosan-impregnated sutures to decrease. Surgical Site Infections: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. Ann Surg. 2012;255(5):854-859.
14. Daoud FC, Edmiston CE Jr, Leaper D. Meta-analysis of prevention of surgical site infections following incision closure with triclosan-coated sutures: robustness to new evidence. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2014;15(3):165-181.
15. Daoud FC. Systematic literature review update of the PROUD Trial: potential usefulness of a collaborative database. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2014;15(6):857-858.
16. Guo J, Pan LH, Li YX, et al. Efficacy of triclosan- coated sutures for reducing risk of surgical site infection in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Surg Res. 2016; 201(1):105-117.
17. Sajid MS, Craciunas L, Sains P, et al. Use of antibacterial sutures for skin closure in controlling surgical site infections: a systematic review of published randomized, controlled trials. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2013;1(1):42-50.
18. Sandini M, Mattavelli I, Nespoli L, Uggeri F, Gianotti L. Systematic review and meta-analysis of sutures coated with triclosan for the prevention of surgical site infection after elective colorectal surgery according to the PRISMA statement. Medicine (Baltimore). 2014;95(35):e4057.
19. Wang ZX, Jiang CP, Cao Y, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of triclosan-coated sutures for the prevention of surgical-site infection. Brit J Surg. 2013;100(4): 465-473.
20. Wu X, Kubilay NZ, Ren J, et al. Antimicrobial-coated sutures to decrease surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017;36(1):19-32.
21. Ahmed I, Boulton AJ, Rizvi S, et al. The use of triclosan-coated sutures to prevent surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e029727. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2019-029727.
22. Bhende S, Burkley D, Nawrocki J. In vivo and in vitro anti-bacterial efficacy of absorbable barbed polydioxanone monofilament tissue control device with triclosan. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2018;19(4):430-437.
23. Kumar A. Completion Report for Design Verification testing for DERMABOND™ PRINEO™ 22 cm skin closure system (DP22) AST-2014-0060, Version 2. April 19, 2016. Ethicon, Inc.
24. DERMABOND™ PRINEO™ Skin Closure System [Instructions for Use]. Ethicon, Inc.
25. Su W. Study Report for in vitro evaluation of microbial barrier properties of Dermabond® Protape. 06TR071. December 4, 2006. Ethicon, Inc.
26. Bhende S. In-vitro study to evaluate the ability of DERMABOND™ PRINEO™ Skin Closure System to kill bacteria on contact. June 22, 2012. Ethicon, Inc.
This information is intended for use by customers, patients, and healthcare professionals in the United States only. We recognize that the Internet is a global communications medium; however, laws, regulatory requirements, and product information for medical products can vary from country to country. The product information included here may not be appropriate for use outside the United States, and the information from other sites you visit may not be appropriate for use in the United States.