Spine Surgery and Related Research (Nov 2022)

Barbed Suture versus Interrupted Suture in Posterior Cervical Spine Surgery: Are They Equivalent?

  • Alan R. Tang,
  • Anthony M. Steinle,
  • Hani Chanbour,
  • Godwin Emeka-Ibe,
  • Byron F. Stephens,
  • Scott L. Zuckerman,
  • Amir M. Abtahi

DOI
https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2022-0076
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 6, no. 6
pp. 645 – 653

Abstract

Read online

Introduction: Posterior cervical spine approaches have been associated with increased rates of wound complications compared to anterior approaches. While barbed suture wound closure for lumbar spine surgery has been shown to be safe and efficacious, there is no literature regarding its use in posterior cervical spine surgery. In a cohort of patients undergoing elective posterior cervical spine surgery, we sought to compare postoperative complication rates between barbed and traditional interrupted suture closure. Methods: A retrospective review of demographics, past medical history, and operative and postoperative variables collected from a prospective registry between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2020 was undertaken. All patients 18 years old and above undergoing elective posterior cervical fusion were included. The primary outcome of interest was wound complications, including surgical site infection (SSI), dehiscence, or hematoma. In addition, numerical rating scale (NRS) neck pain (NP), NRS arm pain (AP), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and operative time were collected. A variety of statistical tests were used to compare the two suture groups. Results: Of 117 patients undergoing posterior cervical fusion, 89 (76%) were closed with interrupted suture and 28 (24%) with barbed suture. The interrupted cohort were more likely to have >1 comorbidity (p<0.001), diabetes mellitus (p=0.013), and coronary artery disease (p=0.002). No difference in postoperative wound complications between interrupted/barbed sutures was observed after univariate (OR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.27-4.25, p=0.927) and multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.15-4.00, p=0.756). Univariate logistic regression revealed no differences in achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) NRS-NP (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.28-1.88, p=0.508) or NRS-AP (OR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.25-1.90, p=0.464) at 3 months between suture groups. The interrupted suture group was less likely to achieve MCID NDI at 3 months (OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.80, p=0.016). Conclusions: Barbed suture closure in posterior cervical spine surgery does not lead to higher rates of postoperative wound complications/SSI compared to traditional interrupted fascial closure.

Keywords