Advertisement

5-0 Polypropylene versus 5-0 fast absorbing plain gut for cutaneous wound closure: a randomized evaluator blind trial

  • Daniel Brian EisenEmail author
  • Anne Rang Zhuang
  • Aliza Hasan
  • Victoria Rose Sharon
  • Heejung Bang
  • Milene Kennedy Crispin
Original Paper
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

Mixed opinions exist regarding cosmetic outcomes of 5-0 fast absorbing plain (FG) gut relative to nonabsorbable suture material, such as 5-0 polypropylene (PP). High quality randomized trials comparing these two suture materials are lacking. To determine whether the use of PP during layered repair of linear cutaneous surgery wounds improves scar cosmesis compared to wound closure with FG. A randomized, split wound, comparative effectiveness trial was undertaken. Patients were evaluated 3 months after the intervention by two blinded physicians using the validated patient observer scar assessment scale (POSAS). Patient assessments were also captured using the same instrument as well as scar width and complications. The mean sum of the six components of the POSAS was 10.26 vs 12.74 for PP and FG, respectively, significantly (p < 0.001) in favor of PP. Mean observer overall opinion similarly showed better outcomes for PP than for FG [1.88 vs 2.52, respectively (p < 0.006)]. The mean sum of the patient assessed components of the POSAS for PP and FG was 12.3 vs 14.34, respectively (p = 0.11). Patient overall opinion significantly favored PP (2.41 vs 3.14, p = 0.043). PP resulted in small but statistically significant better cosmetic outcomes than FG. Pain experienced during suture removal was minimal for most patients.

Keywords

Suture material Polypropylene Fast absorbing gut Cosmetic outcome 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The project described was partly supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), through grant UL1 TR001860

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

DBE: none. AZ: none. AH: none. VRS: none. HB: none. MKC: none.

References

  1. 1.
    Parell GJ, Becker GD (2003) Comparison of absorbable with nonabsorbable sutures in closure of facial skin wounds. Arch Facial Plast Surg 5:488–490.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.5.6.488 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Byrne M, Aly A (2019) The Surgical Suture. Aesthet Surg J 39:S67–S72.  https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz036 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Xu B, Xu B, Wang L et al (2016) Absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures for skin closure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Plast Surg 76:598–606.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000418 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pandis N, Chung B, Scherer RW et al (2017) CONSORT 2010 statement: extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials. BMJ 357:j2835.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j2835 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pourang A, Crispin MK, Clark AK et al (2019) Use of 5-0 fast absorbing gut vs 6-0 fast absorbing gut during cutaneous wound closure on the head and neck: a randomized evaluator-blinded split-wound comparative effectiveness trial. J Am Acad Dermatol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2019.02.037 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sklar LR, Pourang A, Armstrong AW et al (2019) Comparison of running cutaneous suture spacing during linear wound closures and the effect on wound cosmesis of the face and neck: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.5057 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kappel S, Kleinerman R, King TH et al (2015) Does wound eversion improve cosmetic outcome?: Results of a randomized, split-scar, comparative trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 72:668–673.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2014.11.032 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Custis T, Armstrong AW, King TH et al (2015) Effect of adhesive strips and dermal sutures vs dermal sutures only on wound closure: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol 151:862–867.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.0174 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R et al (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42:377–381.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zitelli JA, Moy RL (1989) Buried vertical mattress suture. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 15:17–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FRH, Botman YAM, et al (2004) The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1960–1965 (discussion 1966–1967) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van de Kar AL, Corion LUM, Smeulders MJC et al (2005) Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:514–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH et al (2007) Statistics in medicine—reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 357:2189–2194.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr077003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guyuron B, Vaughan C (1992) A comparison of absorbable and nonabsorbable suture materials for skin repair. Plast Reconstr Surg 89:234–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kouba DJ, Tierney E, Mahmoud BH, Woo D (2011) Optimizing closure materials for upper lid blepharoplasty: a randomized, controlled trial. Dermatol Surg Off Publ Am Soc Dermatol Surg Al 37:19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2010.01834.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sajid MS, McFall MR, Whitehouse PA, Sains PS (2014) Systematic review of absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions. World J Gastrointest Surg 6:241–247.  https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v6.i12.241 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Freshwater MF (2012) Theopold C, Potter S, Dempsey M, O’Shaughnessy M. A randomised controlled trial of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after open carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg Eur. 2012;37:350–3. J Hand Surg Eur 37:705 (author reply 705–706).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193412454501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P (2013) Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Fam Med Prim Care 2:9–14.  https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.109934 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyUniversity of California Davis Medical CenterSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.Laser and Skin Surgery Center of Northern CaliforniaSacramentoUSA
  3. 3.Union Square DermatologySan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.Department of DermatologyZucker School of Medicine At Hofstra/NorthwellNew Hyde ParkUSA
  5. 5.Division of BiostatisticsUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  6. 6.California Skin InstituteMontereyUSA
  7. 7.Salinas Valley Imaging CenterSalinasUSA

Personalised recommendations