Effectiveness and safety of knotless barbed sutures in cosmetic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

The barbed suture, which can eliminate knot tying and accelerate the placement of sutures, is an innovative type of suture, whereas the benefits of cosmetic surgeries (CS) are controversial. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of barbed sutures in CS. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for English studies comparing the use of barbed with conventional sutures in CS up to October 2020. The updated Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB2.0) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were utilized to evaluate the risk of bias. Subgroup analysis was performed according to study designs and barbed suture types. A total of 14 studies, including 5 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohort studies, were included (risk of bias: moderate to low), representing 2259 patients. The barbed suture was identified to reduce suture time (mean difference [MD]=-6.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.75 to -3.60, P<0.00001) and operative time (MD=-10.80, 95% CI: -20.83 to -0.76, P=0.03) without increasing the hospital stays and total postoperative complications (most were Clavien I and IIIa). No significant difference was detected for incisional infection, delayed wound healing, and hematoma; however, increasing incidence of wound dehiscence (odds ratio [OR]=1.60, 95% CI: 1.09-2.34, P=0.02) and suture extrusion (OR=3.97, 95%CI: 1.96-8.04, P=0.0001) were found, particularly in the unidirectional barbed suture subgroup. Barbed sutures might also help CS advance and reduce seroma formation. The barbed suture was effective in CS; however, its safety needs to be cautiously interpreted as it might be related to more wound dehiscence and suture extrusion despite similar total postoperative complications with conventional sutures. This study might provide important references for decision-makers and clinicians, though further evidence of randomized design, larger sample size, longer follow-up, and standardized rating approaches are warranted.