P-142 CLINICAL AND ECONOMIC OUTCOMES OF ABSORBABLE KNOTLESS BARBED SUTURE VERSUS OTHER CONVENTIONAL SUTURES FOR ABDOMINAL MIDLINE CLOSURE IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING OPEN HERNIA REPAIRS

Abstract

Abstract Aim We assessed clinical and economic outcomes of patients undergoing open hernia repair using absorbable knotless barbed suture versus conventional absorbable suture for abdominal wall closure. Methods This retrospective cohort study identified patients undergoing hernia repair at a single center between 2013 and 2020. Fixed follow-up of 30, 60, and 90 days were used to assess outcomes (peri-operative complications, and resource utilization). Multivariate analyses for outcomes and Cox Proportional Hazards models for time to readmission and complications were conducted. Results Of 821 hernia repairs, 446 used absorbable knotless barbed suture and 375 used conventional absorbable suture. Baseline characteristics were largely similar between the groups. Surgical site infections (SSI) were significantly less frequent with absorbable knotless barbed suture (60-day, 5.9% vs. 11.4%; P=0.0083; 90-day, 5.9% vs. 11.7%; P=0.006) and remained consistent after multivariate adjustment (60-day, OR [95% CI]: 0.52 [0.29–0.92]; 90-day, 0.51 [0.28–0.90]). Among patients with SSI, deep SSI were less frequent with absorbable knotless barbed suture (60-day, 9.1% vs. 35.7%; P=0.022; 90-day, 9.1% vs. 34.9%; P=0.0252). Absorbable knotless barbed suture significantly reduced the risk of peri-operative complications over time (HR 0.57 [95% CI 0.36–0.92]; P=0.0203). Hospital length of stay was, on average, 2.74 days longer in conventional absorbable suture patients (mean [95% CI] 8.75 [7.83–9.78] vs. 6.01 [5.16–6.99] days; P<.0001). Conclusions Significant differences between sutures were seen with peri-operative infections, which occurred less frequently with absorbable knotless barbed suture and less severe. Peri-operative complications and length of stay were significantly reduced with absorbable knotless barbed suture.