Time to consider blunt needles for implant surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis shows that blunt suture needles reduce glove perforation.

BACKGROUND: Despite a recent Cochrane Review demonstrating blunt suture needles are safer for surgeons, the use of blunt suture needles has not become widely adopted. In the 'Implant Era', with the value of medical implant companies to surpass $145 billion by 2027, should we re-examine the use of blunt suture needles, especially to reduce infection in implant surgery? We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing whether blunt suture needles reduce risks to surgeons and patients. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed per PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases were searched for RCTs. Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios (RR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the MH method. Random or fixed effects modelling use was based on statistical heterogeneity (I2). RESULTS: 14 RCTs were identified with 2488 patients. The RCTs included laparotomies, caesarean sections, episiotomies, and orthopaedic surgeries. Blunt suture needles when compared with sharp needles resulted in a significant reduction in glove perforation; RR: 0.47, 95% CI [0.37 to 0.60] and needlestick injuries, RR: 0.50, 95% CI [0.26 to 0.97]. Sharp needles caused more wound infections, but the result was not statistically significant; RR: 2.73, 95% CI [0.54 to 13.76], p 0.22. Surgeon's satisfaction decreased with blunt needles compared with sharp (RR: 1.22, 95% CI [1.09 to 1.37]). CONCLUSION: Blunt suture needles are safer than sharp needles for surgeons and likely reduce risks to patients. This, however, comes at the cost of decreased ease of use. The authors recommend the routine use of blunt suture needles, especially in implant surgery.

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the use of tranexamic acid (TXA) in acute gastrointestinal bleeding.

INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal bleeding results in significant morbidity, cost and mortality. TXA, an antifibrinolytic agent, has been proposed to reduce mortality; however, many studies report conflicting results. METHODS: The aim of the study was to perform the first systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to evaluate the efficacy TXA for both upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding. This was performed per PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Scopus databases were searched for RCTs. Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the MH method with random effects modelling. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs were identified with 14,338 patients and mean age of 58.4 years. 34.9% (n = 5008) were female and 65.1% (n = 9330) male. There was no significant difference in mortality between TXA and placebo (RR 0.86 95% CI (0.74 to 1.00), P: 0.05). The secondary outcomes, similarly, did not yield significant results. These included rebleeding, need for surgical intervention (RR: 0.75 95% CI (0.53, 1.07)), endoscopic intervention (RR: 0.92 95% CI (0.70, 1.22)), transfusion requirement (RR: 1.01 95% CI (0.94, 10.7)) and length of stay (RR: 0.03 95% CI (- 0.03, 0.08)). There was no increased risk of VTE, RR: 1.29 95% CI (0.53, 3.16). One trial (n = 12,009) reported an increased risk of seizure in the TXA group, RR: 1.73 95% CI (1.03-2.93). CONCLUSION: TXA does not reduce mortality in patients with acute upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding and may confer an increased risk of seizures. The authors do not recommend the use of TXA in acute gastrointestinal bleeding.