Subcuticular sutures for skin closure in non-obstetric surgery.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Goto S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7144739 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSurgical site infections (SSIs) are common postoperative complications. Whether the use of staples or sutures makes a difference in abdominal surgery's infection rate remains elusive.MethodsA systematic review was performed to identify randomized clinical trials comparing staples and sutures after abdominal surgeries. Eligibility criteria involved the SSI occurrence as the primary outcome and the incidence of wound dehiscence, closure time, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction as the secondary outcomes.ResultsOf the 278 studies identified, seven randomized controlled trials representing 3705 patients were included in this review. There was no significant difference in SSI rates between sutures and staples in general (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.79-1.22, I2 = 44%, P = 0.1) or in a subgroup of gastrointestinal surgery, where subcuticular suturing was found with a comparable SSI risk with skin stapling (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.66-1.09). Staple closure was associated with a shorter surgery duration, whereas sutures appeared to provide better cosmesis and patient satisfaction. Sutures and staples achieved a comparable incidence of dehiscence. There was no significant between-study publication bias.ConclusionOur study demonstrated similar outcomes in SSI rate between subcuticular sutures and staples for skin closure in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.
| S-EPMC8096075 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTissue adhesives are now routinely used for skin closure in various surgeries. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NBCA) tissue adhesive in cesarean delivery by comparing it with the safety and efficacy of subcuticular suture closure.Methods and findingsA retrospective chart review was undertaken of all patients who underwent cesarean delivery via Pfannenstiel skin incision. During the study period, a total of 209 patients had NBCA (Histoacryl®) closure and 208 patients had suture closure. Wound complications and Vancouver scar scale (VSS) scores were compared between the 2 groups.ResultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups in indications for cesarean deliveries or number of previous cesarean deliveries. Incidences of wound disruption and infection were also similar between the two closure groups (p = 0.322 and 0.997, respectively). The rate of wound complications was 3.4% in the NBCA group and 5.3% in the suture group. All complications healed uneventfully with topical antibiotics or closure strips. VSS scores at 6-8 weeks after operation were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.858). These results were corroborated by propensity score-matching analysis.ConclusionsNBCA may be a useful skin closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions after cesarean delivery.
| S-EPMC6157826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of staples versus sutures in wound closure after orthopaedic surgery.DesignMeta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, CINAHL, AMED, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched, in addition to the grey literature, in all languages from 1950 to September 2009. Additional studies were identified from cited references. Selection criteria Two authors independently assessed papers for eligibility. Included studies were randomised and non-randomised controlled trials that compared the use of staples with suture material for wound closure after orthopaedic surgery procedures. All studies were included, and publications were not excluded because of poor methodological quality. Review methods Two authors independently reviewed studies for methodological quality and extracted data from each paper. Final data for analysis were collated through consensus. The primary outcome measure was the assessment of superficial wound infection after wound closure with staples compared with sutures. Relative risk and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled with a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with I(2) and chi(2) statistical test.ResultsSix papers, which included 683 wounds, were identified; 332 patients underwent suture closure and 351 staple closure. The risk of developing a superficial wound infection after orthopaedic procedures was over three times greater after staple closure than suture closure (relative risk 3.83, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 10.68; P=0.01). On subgroup analysis of hip surgery alone, the risk of developing a wound infection was four times greater after staple closure than suture closure (4.79, 1.24 to 18.47; P=0.02). There was no significant difference between sutures and staples in the development of inflammation, discharge, dehiscence, necrosis, and allergic reaction. The included studies had several major methodological limitations, including the recruitment of small, underpowered cohorts, poorly randomising patients, and not blinding assessors to the allocated methods of wound closure. Only one study had acceptable methodological quality.ConclusionsAfter orthopaedic surgery, there is a significantly higher risk of developing a wound infection when the wound is closed with staples rather than sutures. This risk is specifically greater in patients who undergo hip surgery. The use of staples for closing hip or knee surgery wounds after orthopaedic procedures cannot be recommended, though the evidence comes from studies with substantial methodological limitations. Though we advise orthopaedic surgeons to reconsider their use of staples for wound closure, definitive randomised trials are still needed to assess this research question.
| S-EPMC2840224 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Simple Summary The choice of suture material for skin closure can affect the final cosmetic outcome, the risk of wound infection and other complications in companion animals. We assessed two commercially available suture materials, namely, Monocryl and Securex, for use in suturing the skin of dogs, using cosmetic, clinical, ultrasonographic and histological evaluations. The results indicated only minimal differences between the two products, although better scores were achieved using Monocryl. Both were found to be sufficient for use in intradermal suturing in dogs. The earlier removal of Securex compared to Monocryl did not have any additional beneficial effect on wound healing and scar appearance in dogs. Abstract The study aimed to compare incisional wound healing with intradermal suture patterns performed with (a) absorbable suture with burying of the knots and (b) nonabsorbable suture anchored with clips. Ten dogs were included in the study. Surgically created skin incisions were apposed with continuous intradermal suture pattern with 4/0 poliglecaprone 25 with burying of the knots and continuous intradermal pattern with 4/0 polypropylene with clips. Cosmetic, clinical, ultrasonographic and histological scores were evaluated. The intradermal pattern with clips was easier to perform and required significantly less time to complete than the intradermal suture with burying of the knots. Cosmetic, clinical, ultrasonographic and histological evaluation scores did not differ significantly between the techniques. Irrespective of the technique used, the cosmetic, ultrasonographic, clinical and histological appearances of the incisions improved over time. In conclusion, polypropylene was found to be a safe and effective suture material for use with intradermal suture pattern with clips in dogs and to have an easy and quick application. However, in our sample, its earlier removal from wounds than poliglecaprone 25 was not found to be associated with a supposedly beneficial effect on wound healing and scar appearance. Both suture materials can be useful in intradermal suture techniques in dogs.
| S-EPMC9960444 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of our study was to compare, in terms of aesthetic results, the use of synthetic glue to intradermal absorbable sutures in postthyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy wound closure in a single blinded, randomised, per protocol equivalence study. From September 2008 to May 2010, patients undergoing thyroid or parathyroid surgery (with an external approach) at the Otolaryngology Department of the University Hospital of Modena were assessed for eligibility. In total, 42 patients who had had synthetic glue application on surgical incisions (A) and 47 patients who had subcuticular sutures on their surgical incisions (B) were enrolled. The mean of the endpoint (based on the Wound Registry Scale) of group A at 10 days was 1.4, while that in group B (based on the Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale) was 2.9. Statistically significant (p = 0.002) and clinically significant (difference of the means = 1.5) differences in the aesthetic results were found between groups A and B at 10 days, with better results in group B. On the other hand, at 3 months, the mean of the endpoint in group A was 3.1 while that in group B was 2.8; no statistically significant (p = 0.62) or clinically significant (difference in means = 0.3) differences were found between groups A and B. In conclusion, synthetic glue differs from subcuticular suture in post-thyroidectomy or post-parathyroidectomy incision for early aesthetic results, with better outcomes for subcuticular sutures. At 3 months, there were no differences in aesthetic outcomes between groups. Moreover, sex, incision length, age, cold/hot blade and correspondence of the incision with a wrinkle in the skin did not seem to influence aesthetic outcomes with this type of incision.
| S-EPMC4347000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the risk of cesarean wound disruption or infection after closure with surgical staples compared with subcuticular suture.MethodsWomen with viable pregnancies at 24 weeks of gestation or greater undergoing scheduled or unscheduled cesarean delivery were randomized to wound closure with surgical staples or absorbable suture. Staples were removed at postoperative days 3-4 for low transverse incisions and days 7-10 for vertical incisions. Standardized wound evaluations were performed at discharge (days 3-4) and 4-6 weeks postoperatively. The primary outcome was a composite of wound disruption or infection within 4-6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included operative time, highest pain score on analog scale, cosmesis score, and patient scar satisfaction score. Analyses were by intent to treat.ResultsOf 398 patients, 198 were randomized to staples and 200 to suture (but four received staples). Baseline characteristics including body mass index, prior cesarean delivery, labor, and type of skin incision were similar by group. The primary outcome incidence at hospital discharge was 7.1% for staples and 0.5% for suture (P<.001, relative risk 14.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-106). Of 350 (87.9%) with follow-up at 4-6 weeks, the cumulative risk of the primary outcome at 4-6 weeks was 14.5% for staples and 5.9% for suture (P=.008, relative risk 2.5, 95% CI 1.2-5.0). Operative time was longer with suture closure (median time of 58 versus 48 minutes; P<.001). Pain scores at 72-96 hours and at 6 weeks, cosmesis score, and patient satisfaction score did not differ by group.ConclusionStaples closure compared with suture is associated with significantly increased composite wound morbidity after cesarean delivery.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01008449.Level of evidence: I.
| S-EPMC3875219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:A recently published meta-analysis comparing metallic staples to sutures in orthopaedic procedures revealed three fold increase in risk for infection in stapled wounds. The studies included in the meta-analysis are at risk of bias due to experimental design limitations. A large randomized controlled trial is proposed to direct orthopaedic surgeons in their choice of wound closure material. METHODS/DESIGN:A parallel group randomized controlled trial with institutional review board approval will be conducted. Patients will be randomized intraoperatively to have skin wounds closed with sutures or staples. Dressings will be used to maintain blinding outcome assessors. The primary outcome measure will be a composite all-cause wound complication outcome measure composed of: infection, wound drainage, wound necrosis, blistering, dehiscence, suture abscess and material sensitivity reaction. An independent review board blinded to treatment assignment will adjudicate suspected complications based on clinical data. All deceased patients will also be reviewed. An interim analysis of complications will take place after half of the patients have been recruited. All data will be analyzed by a blinded statistician. Dichotomous primary and secondary outcome measures will be analyzed using the Chi-squared statistic. Continuous outcome measures will be analyzed using Student's?t-test. Subgroup analysis will compare infection rates using sutures versus staples in each anatomic area (upper extremity, pelvis/acetabulum, hip/femur, knee, ankle). A further subgroup analysis will be conducted comparing trauma patients to elective surgery patients. Non-infected revision surgery will also be compared to primary surgery. DISCUSSION:Wound closure material is an afterthought for many orthopaedic surgeons. The combined results of several comparative trials suggests that the choice of wound closure materials may have an impact on the rate of surgical site infections. However, the strength of the evidence is poor given the heterogeneity of the methods employed in previous studies. The following study protocol aims to guide surgeons in their choice of wound closure material by determining if there is a difference in complication rates in sutured and stapled wounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT01146236 (registered June 14, 2010).
| S-EPMC3495200 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSkin closure techniques during minimally-invasive gynecologic surgery is largely based on surgeon preference. The optimum technique would theoretically be safe, rapid, inexpensive, and result in good cosmetic appearance. Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (Dermabond) may be a comparable and safe option for port site closure as compared with subcuticular suture. In this randomized clinical trial, we hypothesized that operative time for skin closure would be less than subcuticular suture during robotic urogynecologic procedures.AimTo compare skin closure during robotic urogynecologic surgeries for tissue adhesives and subcuticular suture.MethodsFifty female subjects > 18 years of age undergoing robotic urogynecologic procedures were randomized to have port site closure with either cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (n = 25) or subcuticular suture (n = 25). All procedures and postoperative evaluations were performed by the same board certified Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgeon. Incisional closure time was recorded. Each subject was followed for 12-wk postoperatively. Incision cosmesis was evaluated using the Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale.ResultsA total of 47 subjects (cyanoacrylate group, n = 23; suture group, n = 24) completed the 12-wk postoperative evaluation. Closure time was significantly less (P < 0.0005) using cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (5.4 ± 2.0 min) than subcuticular suture (24.9 ± 5.6 min). Cosmesis scores were significantly higher in the cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive group than subcuticular suture (P = 0.025). No differences were found between bleeding, infection, or dehiscence (P = 1.00, P = 0.609, P = 0.234, respectively). No statistical demographical differences existed between the two study arms.ConclusionOur study supported our original hypothesis that cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive for port site closure during robotic urogynecolgic procedures uses less time than with subcuticular suture. Our study also supports that tissue adhesive is comparable to cosmetic outcome while not jeopardizing rates of bleeding, infection, or dehiscence.
| S-EPMC7603786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In the spectrum of surgical decision-making, wound closure material is often an afterthought. However, the findings of a recent meta-analysis suggest that the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) is increased by using staples to close surgical wounds. Less clear is the effect of closure material on the incidence of non-infectious wound complications.The aim of this study was to compare sutures and staples in terms of: incidence of wound complications to determine the sample size for a definitive trial comparing wound closure methods. METHODS:Eligible adult orthopaedic patients were randomized to have wounds closed with sutures or staples. Time for skin closure was recorded. Wounds were assessed for complications for six weeks. The incidence of complications was compared using Fisher's exact test. Time to close and pain with removal of closure material were compared using a Student's t-test. RESULTS:The total number of patients reporting a wound complication was 59 of 148 patients completing six-week followup (41%), with no differennce between sutures and staples (RR = 0.77, CI = 0.52-1.14). The time to close wounds was shorter in the staple group (mean=4.8 min, CI = 2.6-7.1) than the suture group (mean=12 min, CI = 7.9-16). Patients in the staple group (mean=3.7, CI =2.8-4.6) reported more pain with removal than suture group (mean=2.5, CI =1.6-3.4). CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that 42% of patients report a wound complication with no difference between sutures and staples. It was demonstrated that suturing skin requires more time and staples are more painful to remove. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01146236 (registered June 14, 2010).
| S-EPMC3598732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTissue adhesive, adhesive tape, and sutures are used to close surgical incisions. However, it is unclear which produces the best results in children, and whether combination wound closure is better than sutures alone.MethodsIn this parallel randomised controlled trial (ANZCTR: ACTRN12617000158369), children (aged 18 years or less) undergoing elective general surgical or urological procedures were randomized to skin closure with sutures alone, sutures and adhesive tape, or sutures and tissue adhesive. Participants were assessed 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and more than 6 months after operation. Outcomes included wound cosmesis (clinician- and parent-rated) assessed using four validated scales, parental satisfaction, and wound complication rates.Results295 patients (333 wounds) were recruited and 277 patients (314 wounds) were included in the analysis. Tissue adhesive wounds had poorer cosmesis at 6 weeks: median 10-point VAS score 7.7 with sutures alone, 7.5 with adhesive tape, and 7.0 with tissue adhesive (P = 0.014). Respective median scores on a 100-point VAS were 80.0, 77.2, and 73.8 (P = 0.010). This difference was not sustained at over 6 months. There was no difference in parent-rated wound cosmesis at 6 weeks (P = 0.690) and more than 6 months (P = 0.167): median score 9.0 with sutures alone, 10.0 with adhesive tape, and 10.0 with tissue adhesive at both stages. Parental satisfaction was similar at all points, with a median score of 5 (very satisfied) for all groups. There was one instance of wound dehiscence in the tissue adhesive group and no wound infections.ConclusionShort-term wound cosmesis was poorer with tissue adhesive although it is unclear whether this difference is sustained in the long-term. There were no differences between techniques for the study outcomes.Registration numberACTRN12617000158369 (ANZCTR) (https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372177&isReview=true).
| S-EPMC10364679 | biostudies-literature