Infections are a common complication after surgery. The purpose of triclosan coated sutures is to prevent infections in the surgical area. However, triclosan may have consequences for the environment and antibiotic resistance, and the effect on the incidence of infection is uncertain. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health has therefore been asked to investigate effectiveness, safety, and health economic consequences of using absorbable triclosan coated sutures compared to standard absorbable sutures, without triclosan, to prevent surgical site infection. In addition, we will look at the potential influence of triclosan coated sutures on the environment and antibiotic resistance. We will also collect and list studies which compare chlorhexidine coated sutures with standard sutures.
A group of experts in the field of disease prevention, surgery, environment, and antibiotic resistance will actively take part in the assessment. We will use the recently published report on the same subject from National Institute of Care and Excellence (NICE) as a starting point. We will update the literature search and collect relevant studies, both from the report and from the updated search. The population we will investigate is individuals who require wound closure after a surgical intervention where absorbable sutures are a suitable alternative. The outcomes investigated are the number of surgical site infections, wound rupture, length of hospital stay and use of antibiotics. The results will be compared in meta-analyses. Relevant subgroup analyses may be based on type of surgical intervention and degree of defined surgical site contamination. The report will have chapters covering the use of triclosan coated sutures potential effect on the environment and antibiotic resistance. The type of health economic analysis will depend upon the results of the effectiveness and safety analyses.
