Coated VICRYL® Plus Antibacterial (polyglactin 910) Suture

VICRYL Plus Sutures offer smooth tissue passage, exceptional handling, and knot security, and they are shown in vitro to inhibit bacterial colonization of the suture. They provide 2-4 weeks of tissue support.1

Coated VICRYL® Plus Antibacterial (polyglactin 910) Suture

Resources

Resources

Understanding Plus Antibacterial Technology
Understanding Plus Antibacterial Technology
04:45
The Fight Against SSI
The Fight Against SSI
03:16

Supporting Documentation

Product Support

Plus Antibacterial Sutures Portfolio Overview

Plus Antibacterial Suture Conversion Chart

Clinical Evidence

Plus Sutures Evidence Summary

Plus Sutures de Jonge Meta-Analysis Overview

References

*21 RCTs, 6462 patients, 95% CI: (14, 40%), P<0.001.

†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).

‡Clean wounds 10 RCTs, 2842 patients 95% CI: (11-43%), P=0.003; non-clean wounds 14 RCTs, 3620 patients, 95% CI: (7-42%). 

§As shown in coronary artery bypass surgery.

||On average, compared to traditional sutures. 

¶Guidelines on reducing the risk of surgical site infections are general to triclosan-coated sutures and are not specific to any one brand.

#In preclinical studies ex vivo model.

**Measured by the Hollander Cosmesis Scale at 2 weeks after surgery and the Vancouver Scar Scale 6 and 12 months after surgery in a prospective, randomized controlled trial (N=60).

1. Ethicon Wound Closure Manual. 2013. Ethicon, Inc. 

2. 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.

3. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Levels of Evidence. March, 2009. https://www.cebm.net/2009/06/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/. Accessed September 8, 2020. 4. Plus Suture Cost Analysis. 2019. Ethicon, Inc. 

5. de Lissovoy G, Pan F, Paktar A, et al. Surgical site infection incidence and burden assessment using multi-national real-world data. Presented at EU ISPOR Meeting; November 5-8, 2011; Madrid, Spain.

6. World Health Organization Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/277399/9789241550475-eng.pdf. Accessed May 9, 2020.

7. Berríos-Torres SI, Umscheid CA, Bratzler DW, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 2017. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(8):784-791. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0904.

8. Ban KA, Minei JP, Laronga C, et al. American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: Surgical Site Infection Guidelines, 2016 Update. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;224(1):59-74. 

9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guideline. Surgical site infections: prevention and treatment. NICE website. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng125/chapter/Recommendations#closure-methods. Accessed July 2, 2020. 

10. Prevention of postoperative wound infections. Recommendation of the Committee for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) at the Robert Koch Institute. Bundesgesundheitsbl. 2018; 61(4):448-473.

11. Overaker D. Tissue gapping under tension of porcine cadaveric skin incisions closed with Stratafix Spiral in comparison to Monocryl in both interrupted and continuous stitching patterns. August 23, 2012. Ethicon, Inc. 

12. Parvizi D, Friedl H, Schintler MV, et al. Use of 2‐octyl cyanoacrylate together with a self‐adhering mesh (Dermabond Prineo) for skin closure following abdominoplasty: an open, prospective, controlled, randomized, clinical study. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013;37(3):529‐537.