Removed versus unremoved vicryl sutures used for subcuticular skin closure

Suzan S. Elsharkawy; Waleed A. Dawood

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20184932

Authors

Suzan S. Elsharkawy Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
Waleed A. Dawood Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20184932

Keywords:

Hypertrophic scar, Keloid, Surgical wound, Wound healing

Abstract

Background: The objective was to compare the difference between removing vicryl suture thread after skin healing or burry the knots and leaving it to be absorbed in situ, after subcuticular skin closure of Pfannesteil incisions.

Methods: Prospective, randomized controlled trial included 449 eligible participants were prospectively recruited between July 2016 and June 2017. All selected patients had a pfannenstial incision with subcuticular skin closure using 2-0 absorbable vicryl stiches (for primary caesarean section or extra peritoneal surgical approach to the prostate, bladder and distal ureters). The left side knot was buried under the skin edge and a knot in the midline and the right edge was made. After 10 days postoperative, the right half of the stitch thread and the two knots were removed, and the left half of the thread was left in situ. Patients were observed for any complication at time of stitch removal, after one month and after 6 months' post-operative.

Results: Wound infection rate, hypertrophic scars, keloids and skin itching were significantly higher in the un-removed wound sides while skin dehiscence was significantly higher in the removed wound sides.

Conclusions: Leaving behind absorbable suture material after wound healing -when used in subcuticular pfannenstial skin closure- is associated with increased rates of wound infection, hypertrophic scars, itching and keloids, which of course overweight any known benefits of the technique.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World health report. 2010;30:1-31.

Tully L, Gates S, Brocklehurst P, McKenzie-McHarg K, Ayers S. Surgical techniques used during caesarean section operations: results of a national survey of practice in the UK. European J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;102(2):120-6.

Mashhadi SA, Loh CYY: Subcuticular suture-is it a misnomer?. Eur J Plastic Surg. 2010;33(4):233.

Van den Ende ED, Vriensa PWHE, Allemaa JH, Breslaua PJ. Adhesive bonds or percutaneous absorbable suture for closure of surgical wounds in children. J Pediatr Surg. 2004;39(8):1249-51.

Sanders RJ. Subcuticular skin closure, description of technique. J Dermatol Surg. 1975;1:61-4.

Moy RL, Waldman B, Hein DW. A review of sutures and suturing techniques. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1992;18:785-95.

La Padula A. A new technique to secure an entirely buried subcuticular suture. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995; 95:423.

Bush JA, McGrouther DA, Young VL, Herndon DN, Longaker MT, Mustoe TA, et al. Recommendations on clinical proof of efficacy for potential scar prevention and reduction therapies. Wound Repair Regen. 2011;19:32-7.

Almine JF, Wise SG, Weiss AS. Elastin signaling in wound repair. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2012;96:248-57.

Bae SH, Bae YC, Nam SB, Choi SJ. A skin fixation method for decreasing the influence of wound contraction on wound healing in a rat model. Arch Plast Surg. 2012;39:457-62.

Larson BJ, Longaker MT, Lorenz HP. Scarless fetal wound healing: a basic science review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1172-80.

Kim HY, Kim JW, Park JH, Kim JH, Han YS. Personal factors that affect the satisfaction of female patients undergoing esthetic suture after typical thyroidectomy. Arch Plast Surg. 2013;40:414-24.

Toll EC, Loizou P, Davis CR, Porter GC, Pothier DD. Scars and satisfaction: do smaller scars improve patient-reported outcome? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;269:309-13.

Bran GM, Goessler UR, Hormann K, Riedel F, Sadick H. Keloids: current concepts of pathogenesis (review). Int J Mol Med. 2009;24:283-93.

Juckett G, Hartman-Adams H. Management of keloids and hypertrophic scars. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80:253-60.

Oluwasanmi JO. Keloids in the African. Clin Plast Surg. 1974;1:179-95.

Appleton I, Brown NJ, Willoughby DA. Apoptosis, necrosis, and proliferation: possible implications in the etiology of keloids. Am J Pathol. 1996;149:1441-7.

Ladin DA, Hou Z, Patel D, McPhail M, Olson JC, Saed GM, et al. P53 and apoptosis alterations in keloids and keloid fibroblasts. Wound Repair Regen. 1998;6:28-37.

DiPietro LA. Angiogenesis and scar formation in healing wounds. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2013;25:87-91.

Huang C, Akaishi S, Ogawa R. Mechanosignaling pathways in cutaneous scarring. Arch Dermatol Res. 2012;304:589-97.

Sarrazy V, Billet F, Micallef L, Coulomb B, Desmoulière A. Mechanisms of pathological scarring: role of myofibroblasts and current developments. Wound Repair Regen. 2011;19:10-5.

Ammirati CT. Advances in wound closure material.: In: James WD, ed. Advances in dermatology. 18, St. Louis (MO): Mosby; 2002:313-338.

Edlich R, Szarmach RR, Livingston J, Rodeheaver GT, Thacker JG. An innovative surgical suture and needle evaluation and selection program. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2002;12(4):211-29.

Hochberg J, Murray GF. Principles of operative surgery. In: Sabiston DC, ed. Textbook of surgery. 15th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1992:253-263.

Sibbald B, Roberts C. Understanding controlled trials. Crossover trials. BMJ. 1998;316(7146):1719.

Kotz S, Balakrishnan N, Read CB, Vidakovic B. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. 2nd ed. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Interscience; 2006.

Kirkpatrick LA, Feeney BC. A simple guide to IBM SPSS statistics for version 20.0. Student ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning; 2013.

Mackeen AD, Berghella V, Larsen ML. Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012(11).

Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(5):1607-17.

Alderdice F, McKenna D, Dornan J. Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2003(2).

Clay FS, Walsh CA, Walsh SR. Staples vs subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(5):378-83.

Mackeen AD, Schuster M, Berghella V. Suture versus staples for skin closure after cesarean: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(5):621-e1.

Tan PC, Mubarak S, Omar SZ. Absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures for subcuticular skin closure of a transverse suprapubic incision. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2008;103(2):179-81.

Hasdemir PS, Guvenal T, Ozcakir HT, Koyuncu FM, Dinc Horasan G, Erkan M, et al. Comparison of subcuticular suture materials in cesarean skin closure. Surg Res Pract. 2015;2015.