5-0 Polypropylene versus 5-0 fast absorbing plain gut for cutaneous wound closure: a randomized evaluator blind trial
- 23 Downloads
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.
KeywordsSuture material Polypropylene Fast absorbing gut Cosmetic outcome
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.
- 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
- 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.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