Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A randomized controlled trial comparing cosmetic outcome after skin closure with ‘staples’ or ‘subcuticular sutures’ in emergency Cesarean section

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To compare staples with subcuticular sutures for skin closure in emergency Cesarean sections (CS).

Methods

One hundred and thirty women (undergoing emergency CS without previous abdominal delivery) were randomly assigned to either staples or subcuticular skin closure (monocryl 3-0). Primary outcome of the study was cosmetic outcome [as assessed by patient and independent observer: Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS) and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), respectively], 6 weeks post-operative. Secondary outcomes were wound complications, operating time, post-operative pain (visual analogue scale day 3 post-operative and patient assessment of pain in scar 6 weeks post-operative), and duration of hospital stay.

Results

112 women were available for evaluation of scar 6 weeks post-operative. Cosmetic result of staples was significantly better than subcuticular sutures (PSAS and OSAS: p value 0.022 and 0.000, respectively), with significantly lesser duration of surgery (24 vs. 32 min: p value 0.000) and comparable post-operative pain (pain on day 3 and 6 weeks post-operatively: p value 0.474 and 0.179, respectively) and wound complications (p value 0.737). However, duration of stay in hospital was increased (6 vs. 3 days: p value 0.001).

Conclusion

Staples are the method of choice for skin closure in emergency CS as they are significantly better than subcuticular sutures with respect to cosmesis and duration of surgery. Post-operative pain and wound complications are comparable in two groups. However, staples are associated with significantly increased duration of hospital stay. Trial registered in clinical trial registry CTRI: REF/2013/05/005087.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clay FS, Walsh CA, Walsh AR (2011) Staples vs. subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:378–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mackeen AD, Berghella V, Larsen ML (2012) Techniques for skin closure in caesarean section. Cochrane database Syst Rev 11:CD003577

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Basha S, Rochon M, Quinones J, Coassolo K, Rust O, Smulian J (2010) Randomized controlled trial of wound complication rates of subcuticular suture vs. staples for skin closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:285.e1–285.e8

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gaertner I, Burkhardt T, Beinder E (2008) Scar appearance of different skin and subcutaneous tissue closure techniques in cesarean section: a randomized study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 138:29–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rousseau J-A, Girard K, Turcot-Lemay L, Thomas N (2009) A randomized study comparing skin closure in cesarean sections: staples vs subcuticular sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:265.e1–265.e4

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Gottardi A, Cherubino M, Uccella S, Valdatta L (2010) Cosmetic outcomes of various skin closure methods following cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(36):e1–e8

    Google Scholar 

  7. de Graaf IM, Oude Rengerink K, Wiersma IC, Donker ME, Mol BW, Pajkrt E (2012) Techniques for wound closure at caesarean section: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 165:47–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA et al (2004) The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1960–1965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. van de Kar AL, Corion LU, Smeulders MJ, Draaijers LJ, van der Horst CM, van Zuijlen PP (2005) Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:514–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Niessen FB, Spauwen PH, Kon M (1997) The role of suture material in hypertrophic scar formation: Monocryl vs Vicryl-rapide. Ann Plast Surg 39:254–260

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. de Waard J, Trimbos B, Peters L (2006) Cosmetic results of lower midline abdominal incision: Donati stitches versus a continuous intracutaneous suture in a randomized clinical trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85:955–959

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Frishman GN, Schwartz T, Hogan JW (1997) Closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions. Staples vs. subcuticular suture. J Reprod Med 42:627–630

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Figueroa D, Jauk VC, Szychowski JM, Garner R, Biggio JR, Andrews WW, Hauth J, Tita AT (2013) Surgical staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 121(1):33–38

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest with any individual or organization.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chanderdeep Sharma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharma, C., Verma, A., Soni, A. et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing cosmetic outcome after skin closure with ‘staples’ or ‘subcuticular sutures’ in emergency Cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290, 655–659 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3274-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3274-9

Keywords

Navigation