In vitro Inhibition of Biofilm Formation on Silicon Rubber Voice Prosthesis: Α Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Biofilm formation on voice prostheses is the primary reason for their premature implant dysfunction. Multiple strategies have been proposed over the last decades to achieve inhibition of biofilm formation on these devices. The purpose of this study was to assess the results of the available in vitro biofilm inhibition modalities on silicone rubber voice prostheses. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases up to February 29, 2020. A total of 33 in vitro laboratory studies investigating the efficacy of different coating methods against <i>Candida</i>, <i>Staphylococcus</i>, <i>Streptococcus</i>, <i>Lactobacilli</i>, and <i>Rothia</i> biofilm growth on silicone rubber medical devices were included. Subgroup analysis linked to the type of prevention modality was carried out, and quality assessment was performed with the use of the modified CONSORT tool. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Data from 33 studies were included in qualitative analysis, of which 12 qualified for quantitative analysis. For yeast biofilm formation assessment, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of the intervention group (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] [−1.73, −0.66]; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed that combined methods (active and passive surface modification) are the most effective for biofilm inhibition in yeast (SMD = −2.53; 95% CI [−4.02, −1.03]; <i>p</i> = 0.00001). No statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups were shown for bacterial biofilm inhibition (SMD = −0.09; 95% CI [−0.68, 0.46]; <i>p</i> = 0.65), and the results from the subgroup analysis found no notable differences between the surface modification methods. After analyzing data on polymicrobial biofilms, a statistically significant difference in favor of prevention methods in comparison with the control group was detected (SMD = −2.59; 95% CI [−7.48, 2.31]; <i>p</i> = 0.30). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The meta-analysis on biofilm inhibition demonstrated significant differences in favor of yeast biofilm inhibition compared to bacteria. A stronger inhibition with the application of passive or combined active and passive surface modification techniques was reported.