Ethicon Advanced Wound Closure Products to reduce Surgical Site Infection risk – SSI – Zero Starts With One
Ethicon Advanced Wound Closure Products to reduce Surgical Site Infection risk – SSI – Zero Starts With One

Watch real stories about real SSI events

More stories

Initiative to Reduce Surgical Site Infections - Real Patient story with Alicia Cole | Ethicon
Initiative to Reduce Surgical Site Infections - Real Patient story with Alicia Cole | Ethicon
04:07
How Life Changed in One Moment for This Marine with Surgical Site Infection | Ethicon
How Life Changed in One Moment for This Marine with Surgical Site Infection | Ethicon
03:32
Misconceptions about SSI & Strategy to Reduce it in Cardiothoracic Surgery | Ethicon
Misconceptions about SSI & Strategy to Reduce it in Cardiothoracic Surgery | Ethicon
03:57
Surgical Site Infection in Orthopedic Patients with Dr. Antonia Chen | Ethicon
Surgical Site Infection in Orthopedic Patients with Dr. Antonia Chen | Ethicon
03:59
Behind the Science of Plus Antibacterial Sutures | Ethicon
Behind the Science of Plus Antibacterial Sutures | Ethicon
04:54
The Importance of SSI Risk Reduction | Zero Starts With One | Ethicon
The Importance of SSI Risk Reduction | Zero Starts With One | Ethicon
04:01

Hear from patients and experts

References

*As shown in coronary artery bypass surgery.

† 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. 

  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.
  27. 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.
  28. In a meta-analysis that included 21 RCTs, 6462 patients, 95% Cl: (14, 40%), P<0.001.
  29. 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).
  30. Refers only to STRATAFIX'" Symmetric PDS™ Plus, STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus and STRATAFIX™ Spiral Monocryl™ Plus.
  31. Meta-analysis only included traditional (non-barbed) sutures.
  32. As seen in vitro.
  33. Clinical significance unknown.