Sutures, Adhesives, Staples, and Other Closure Technologies

  • Christina Correnti
  • Kaitlin Blankenship
  • Nicole Ufkes
  • John Strasswimmer


The history of surgery, and therefore wound closure, is that of human social evolution. Social cohesion for Homo sapiens (which led to our species dominating other humanoid species including H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus) depended upon caring for the infirm. Some of the earliest surgical needles, dating back to at least 20,000 BC, were made of bone, and primitive sutures were made of plant material and linen (5). Middle-Kingdom Egyptians used strips of linen coated with honey and flour as some of the first documented adhesive material for wound closure. South American cultures even used the pincers of decapitated ants as a means of wound closure. The use of gut as suture material was first mentioned in ancient Greece around the time of Galen, a material still used today.


Sutures Skin Surgery Subcuticular Wound closure Barbed sutures Vertical mattress 


  1. 1.
    Mackenzie D. The history of sutures. Med Hist. 1973;17(2):158–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moreno-Arias GA, Izento-Menezes CM, Carrasco MA, Camps-Fresneda A. Second intention healing after Mohs micrographic surgery. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2000;14(3):159–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mott KJ, Clark DP, Stelljes LS. Regional variation in wound contraction of mohs surgery defects allowed to heal by second intention. Dermatol Surg. 2003;29(7):712–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Mubarak L, Al-Haddab M. Cutaneous wound closure materials: an overview and update. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2013;6(4):178–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kreicher KL, Bordeaux JS. Addressing practice gaps in cutaneous surgery: advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2017;19(2):147–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wright TI, Baddour LM, Berbari EF, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery: advisory statement 2008. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;59(3):464–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christenson LJ, Phillips PK, Weaver AL, Otley CC. Primary closure vs second-intention treatment of skin punch biopsy sites: a randomized trial. Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(9):1093–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stebbins WG, Gusev J, Higgins HW 2nd, Nelson A, Govindarajulu U, Neel V. Evaluation of patient satisfaction with second intention healing versus primary surgical closure. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;73(5):865–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Becker GD, Adams LA, Levin BC. Outcome analysis of Mohs surgery of the lip and chin: comparing secondary intention healing and surgery. Laryngoscope. 1995;105(11):1176–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Becker GD, Adams LA, Levin BC. Secondary intention healing of exposed scalp and forehead bone after Mohs surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;121(6):751–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patel KK, Telfer MR, Southee R. A “round block” purse-string suture in facial reconstruction after operations for skin cancer surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;41(3):151–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spencer JM, Malerich SA, Moon SD. A regional survey of purse-string sutures for partial and complete closure of Mohs surgical defects. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(6):679–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen PR, Martinelli PT, Schulze KE, Nelson BR. The cuticular purse string suture: a modified purse string suture for the partial closure of round postoperative wounds. Int J Dermatol. 2007;46(7):746–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scholl L, Meier NM, Hessam S, Valavanis K, Bechara FG. Subcuticular and cuticular purse-string sutures in dermatologic surgery. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges [J Ger Soc Dermatol]. 2016;14(2):196–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adams B, Levy R, Rademaker AE, Goldberg LH, Alam M. Frequency of use of suturing and repair techniques preferred by dermatologic surgeons. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32(5):682–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forsch RT. Essentials of skin laceration repair. Am Fam Physician. 2008;78(8):945–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forsch RT, Little SH, Williams C. Laceration repair: a practical approach. Am Fam Physician. 2017;95(10):628–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Regula CG, Yag-Howard C. Suture products and techniques: what to use, where, and why. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41(Suppl 10):S187–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Silver E, Wu R, Grady J, Song L. Knot security- how is it affected by suture technique, material, size, and number of throws? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(7):1304–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Strasswimmer J, Latimer B, Speer H. Barbed absorbable suture closure for large Mohs surgery defect. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149(7):853–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greenberg JA, Goldman RH. Barbed suture: a review of the technology and clinical uses in obstetrics and gynecology. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2013;6(3–4):107–15.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rashid RM, Sartori M, White LE, Villa MT, Yoo SS, Alam M. Breaking strength of barbed polypropylene sutures: rater-blinded, controlled comparison with nonbarbed sutures of various calibers. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(7):869–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    de Blacam C, Colakoglu S, Momoh AO, Lin SJ, Tobias AM, Lee BT. Early experience with barbed sutures for abdominal closure in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Eplasty. 2012;12:e24.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hammond DC. Barbed sutures in plastic surgery: a personal experience. Aesthet Surg J. 2013;33(3 Suppl):32S–9S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zaruby J, Gingras K, Taylor J, Maul D. An in vivo comparison of barbed suture devices and conventional monofilament sutures for cosmetic skin closure: biomechanical wound strength and histology. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31(2):232–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Duscher D, Pollhammer MS, Wenny R, Shamiyeh A, Schmidt M, Huemer GM. Barbed sutures in body-contouring: outcome analysis of 695 procedures in 623 patients and technical advances. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2016;40(6):815–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bruns TB, Worthington JM. Using tissue adhesive for wound repair: a practical guide to dermabond. Am Fam Physician. 2000;61(5):1383–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Custis T, Armstrong AW, King TH, Sharon VR, Eisen DB. Effect of adhesive strips and dermal sutures vs dermal sutures only on wound closure: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA dermatology. 2015;151(8):862–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kolt JD. Use of adhesive surgical tape with the absorbable continuous subcuticular suture. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(8):626–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sandini M, Mattavelli I, Nespoli L, Uggeri F, Gianotti L. Systematic review and meta-analysis of sutures coated with triclosan for the prevention of surgical site infection after elective colorectal surgery according to the PRISMA statement. Medicine. 2016;95(35):e4057.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang W, Xue D, Yin H, et al. Barbed versus traditional sutures for wound closure in knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19764.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Borzio RW, Pivec R, Kapadia BH, Jauregui JJ, Maheshwari AV. Barbed sutures in total hip and knee arthroplasty: what is the evidence? A meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2016;40(2):225–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Xu B, Xu B, Wang L, et al. Absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures for skin closure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(5):598–606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Al-Abdullah T, Plint AC, Fergusson D. Absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures in the management of traumatic lacerations and surgical wounds: a meta-analysis. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2007;23(5):339–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gurusamy KS, Toon CD, Allen VB, Davidson BR. Continuous versus interrupted skin sutures for non-obstetric surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;14(2):Cd010365.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moody BR, McCarthy JE, Linder J, Hruza GJ. Enhanced cosmetic outcome with running horizontal mattress sutures. Dermatol Surg. 2005;31(10):1313–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Trimbos JB, Mouw R, Ranke G, Trimbos KB, Zwinderman K. The Donati stitch revisited: favorable cosmetic results in a randomized clinical trial. J Surg Res. 2002;107(1):131–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pool SM, Krabbe-Timmerman IS, Cromheecke M, van der Lei B. Improved upper blepharoplasty outcome using an internal intradermal suture technique: a prospective randomized study. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41(2):246–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kappel S, Kleinerman R, King TH, et al. Does wound eversion improve cosmetic outcome?: results of a randomized, split-scar, comparative trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72(4):668–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang AS, Kleinerman R, Armstrong AW, et al. Set-back versus buried vertical mattress suturing: results of a randomized blinded trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72(4):674–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu X, Nelemans PJ, Frenk LDS, et al. Aesthetic outcome and complications of simple interrupted versus running subcuticular sutures in facial surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:911.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Blouin MM, Al Jasser M, Demanczuk A, Berkowitz J, Zloty D. Continuous versus interrupted sutures for facial surgery repair: a randomized prospective study. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41(8):919–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Plotner AN, Mailler-Savage E, Adams B, Gloster HM Jr. Layered closure versus buried sutures and adhesive strips for cheek defect repair after cutaneous malignancy excision. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64(6):1115–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Buresch AM, Van Arsdale A, Ferzli M, et al. Comparison of subcuticular suture type for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(3):521–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Regan T, Lawrence N. Comparison of poliglecaprone-25 and polyglactin-910 in cutaneous surgery. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39(9):1340–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Menovsky T, Bartels RH, van Lindert EL, Grotenhuis JA. Skin closure in carpal tunnel surgery: a prospective comparative study between nylon, polyglactin 910 and stainless steel sutures. Hand Surg. 2004;9(1):35–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rubin JP, Hunstad JP, Polynice A, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing absorbable barbed sutures versus conventional absorbable sutures for dermal closure in open surgical procedures. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34(2):272–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Elliot D, Cory-Pearce R, Rees GM. The behaviour of presternal scars in a fair-skinned population. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1985;67(4):238–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Howard K, Simison AJ, Morris A, Bhalaik V. A prospective randomised trial of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for wound closure after fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s contracture. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2009;34(5):618–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tan PC, Mubarak S, Omar SZ. Absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures for subcuticular skin closure of a transverse suprapubic incision. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;103(2):179–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kundra RK, Newman S, Saithna A, Lewis AC, Srinivasan S, Srinivasan K. Absorbable or non-absorbable sutures? A prospective, randomised evaluation of aesthetic outcomes in patients undergoing elective day-case hand and wrist surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010;92(8):665–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Risnes I, Abdelnoor M, Baksaas ST, Lundblad R, Svennevig JL. Sternal wound infections in patients undergoing open heart surgery: randomized study comparing intracutaneous and transcutaneous suture techniques. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72(5):1587–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kannan S, Mehta D, Ozog D. Scalp closures with pulley sutures reduce time and cost compared to traditional layered technique-a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study. Dermatol Surg. 2016;42(11):1248–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Koide S, Smoll NR, Liew J, et al. A randomized ‘N-of-1′ single blinded clinical trial of barbed dermal sutures vs. smooth sutures in elective plastic surgery shows differences in scar appearance two-years post-operatively. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68(7):1003–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Angelini GD, Butchart EG, Armistead SH, Breckenridge IM. Comparative study of leg wound skin closure in coronary artery bypass graft operations. Thorax. 1984;39(12):942–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hansen TB, Kirkeby L, Fisker H, Larsen K. Randomised controlled study of two different techniques of skin suture in endoscopic release of carpal tunnel. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2009;43(6):335–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Karabay O, Fermanci E, Silistreli E, et al. Intracutaneous versus transcutaneous suture techniques: comparison of sternal wound infection rates in open-heart surgery patients. Tex Heart Inst J. 2005;32(3):277–82.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Alam M, Posten W, Martini MC, Wrone DA, Rademaker AW. Aesthetic and functional efficacy of subcuticular running epidermal closures of the trunk and extremity: a rater-blinded randomized control trial. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142(10):1272–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kharwadkar N, Naique S, Molitor PJ. Prospective randomized trial comparing absorbable and non-absorbable sutures in open carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg Br. 2005;30(1):92–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nair UR, Griffiths G, Lawson RA. Postoperative neuralgia in the leg after saphenous vein coronary artery bypass graft: a prospective study. Thorax. 1988;43(1):41–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Fiennes AG. Interrupted subcuticular polyglactin sutures for abdominal wounds. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1985;67(2):121.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Scaccia FJ, Hoffman JA, Stepnick DW. Upper eyelid blepharoplasty. A technical comparative analysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994;120(8):827–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sadick NS, D'Amelio DL, Weinstein C. The modified buried vertical mattress suture. A new technique of buried absorbable wound closure associated with excellent cosmesis for wounds under tension. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1994;20(11):735–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Orozco-Covarrubias ML, Ruiz-Maldonado R. Surgical facial wounds: simple interrupted percutaneous suture versus running intradermal suture. Dermatol Surg. 1999;25(2):109–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Guyuron B, Vaughan C. Comparison of polydioxanone and polyglactin 910 in intradermal repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98(5):817–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Breuninger H, Keilbach J, Haaf U. Intracutaneous butterfly suture with absorbable synthetic suture material. Technique, tissue reactions, and results. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1993;19(7):607–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jaggi R, Hart R, Taylor SM. Absorbable suture compared with nonabsorbable suture in upper eyelid blepharoplasty closure. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2009;11(5):349–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Parell GJ, Becker GD. Comparison of absorbable with nonabsorbable sutures in closure of facial skin wounds. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2003;5(6):488–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rosenzweig LB, Abdelmalek M, Ho J, Hruza GJ. Equal cosmetic outcomes with 5-0 poliglecaprone-25 versus 6-0 polypropylene for superficial closures. Dermatol Surg. 2010;36(7):1126–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hohenleutner U, Egner N, Hohenleutner S, Landthaler M. Intradermal buried vertical mattress suture as sole skin closure: evaluation of 149 cases. Acta Derm Venereol. 2000;80(5):344–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gabrielli F, Potenza C, Puddu P, Sera F, Masini C, Abeni D. Suture materials and other factors associated with tissue reactivity, infection, and wound dehiscence among plastic surgery outpatients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107(1):38–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Joshi AS, Janjanin S, Tanna N, Geist C, Lindsey WH. Does suture material and technique really matter? Lessons learned from 800 consecutive blepharoplasties. Laryngoscope. 2007;117(6):981–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Zografos GC, Martis K, Morris DL. Laser Doppler flowmetry in evaluation of cutaneous wound blood flow using various suturing techniques. Ann Surg. 1992;215(3):266–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Streams BN, Jiang SB. A modified running subcuticular suturing technique for the closure of defects after Mohs micrographic surgery. Dermatol Surg. 2003;29(11):1118–21. discussion 1121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    MacKinnon AE, Brown S. Skin closure with polyglycolic acid (Dexon). Postgrad Med J. 1978;54(632):384–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Cassie AB, Chatterjee AK, Mehta S, Haworth JM. Pain quantum and wound healing: a comparison of interrupted inversion PDS and standard nylon sutures in abdominal skin closure. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1988;70(6):339–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Verhoekx JS, Soebhag RK, Weijtens O, van den Bosch WA, Paridaens D. A single- versus double-layered closure technique for full-thickness lower eyelid defects: a comparative study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(3):257–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Pereira JL, Vieira G Jr, de Albuquerque LA, et al. Skin closure in vascular neurosurgery: a prospective study on absorbable intradermal suture versus nonabsorbable suture. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3:94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Wong NL. The running locked intradermal suture. A cosmetically elegant continuous suture for wounds under light tension. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1993;19(1):30–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Chowdhry M, Singh S. Severe scar problems following use of a locking barbed skin closure system in the foot. Foot Ankle Surg. 2013;19(2):131–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Fosko SW, Heap D. Surgical pearl: an economical means of skin closure with absorbable suture. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998;39(2 Pt 1):248–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Scheman A, Rakowski EM, Sheehan J, Campbell T, Derick A. Contact allergy to poliglecaprone 25 sutures. Cutis. 2016;98(5):E1–e2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gkegkes ID, Mavros MN, Alexiou VG, Peppas G, Athanasiou S, Falagas ME. Adhesive strips for the closure of surgical incisional sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Innov. 2012;19(2):145–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Song T, Wang Y, Li H, Wu D, Yin N. Early cosmetic outcomes with the use of skin adhesives: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66(2):292–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Chow A, Marshall H, Zacharakis E, Paraskeva P, Purkayastha S. Use of tissue glue for surgical incision closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211(1):114–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Eggers MD, Fang L, Lionberger DR. A comparison of wound closure techniques for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(8):1251–8.e1251–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Soni A, Narula R, Kumar A, Parmar M, Sahore M, Chandel M. Comparing cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive and conventional subcuticular skin sutures for maxillofacial incisions--a prospective randomized trial considering closure time, wound morbidity, and cosmetic outcome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(12):2152.e2151–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Kouba DJ, Tierney E, Mahmoud BH, Woo D. Optimizing closure materials for upper lid blepharoplasty: a randomized, controlled trial. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37(1):19–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Bartenstein DW, Cummins DL, Rogers GS. A prospective, randomized, single-blind study comparing cyanoacrylate adhesives to sutures for wound closure in skin cancer patients. Dermatol Surg. 2017;43:1371–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Lazar HL, McCann J, Fitzgerald CA, Cabral HJ. Adhesive strips versus subcuticular suture for mediansternotomy wound closure. J Card Surg. 2011;26(4):344–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Taube M, Porter RJ, Lord PH. A combination of subcuticular suture and sterile micropore tape compared with conventional interrupted sutures for skin closure. A controlled trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1983;65(3):164–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Bunker TD. Problems with the use of Op-site sutureless skin closures in orthopaedic procedures. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1983;65(4):260–2.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Watson GM, Anders CJ, Glover JR. Op-Site skin closure: a comparison with subcuticular and interrupted sutures. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1983;65(2):83–4.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Rebello G, Parikh R, Grottkau B. Coaptive film versus subcuticular suture: comparing skin closure time following identical, single-session, bilateral limb surgery in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2009;29(6):626–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Barker P. Breast biopsy: long term follow up of three methods of skin closure. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1984;66(5):367–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Yang S, Ozog D. Comparison of traditional superficial cutaneous sutures versus adhesive strips in layered dermatologic closures on the back-a prospective, randomized, Split-scar study. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41(11):1257–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Chen HH, Tsai WS, Yeh CY, Wang JY, Tang R. Prospective study comparing wounds closed with tape with sutured wounds in colorectal surgery. Arch Surg. 2001;136(7):801–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Gardezi SA, Chaudhry AM, Sial GA, et al. Sutureless skin closure: a comparative study with conventional stitching. J Pak Med Assoc. 1985;35(11):323–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Halli R, Joshi A, Kini Y, Kharkar V, Hebbale M. Retrospective analysis of sutureless skin closure in cleft lip repair. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23(1):e40–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Souza SC, Briglia C, Costa SR. Repair of cutaneous wounds with the use of low cost surgical glue. An Bras Dermatol. 2012;87(2):241–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Dalvi A, Faria M, Pinto A. Non-suture closure of wound using cyanoacrylate. J Postgrad Med. 1986;32(2):97–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Durando D, Porubsky C, Winter S, Kalymon J, O’Keefe T, LaFond AA. Allergic contact dermatitis to dermabond (2-octyl cyanoacrylate) after total knee arthroplasty. Dermatitis. 2014;25(2):99–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Tayebi B, Kaniszewska M, Mahoney AM, Tung R. A novel closure method for surgical defects in atrophic skin using cyanoacrylate adhesive and suture. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41(1):177–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Mackeen AD, Schuster M, Berghella V. Suture versus staples for skin closure after cesarean: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(5):621 e601–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Iavazzo C, Gkegkes ID, Vouloumanou EK, Mamais I, Peppas G, Falagas ME. Sutures versus staples for the management of surgical wounds: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am Surg. 2011;77(9):1206–21.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Hemming K, Pinkney T, Futaba K, Pennant M, Morton DG, Lilford RJ. A systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis: staples versus sutures for surgical procedures. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e75132.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Krishnan R, MacNeil SD, Malvankar-Mehta MS. Comparing sutures versus staples for skin closure after orthopaedic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e009257.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Khan RJ, Fick D, Yao F, et al. A comparison of three methods of wound closure following arthroplasty: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006;88(2):238–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Cross KJ, Teo EH, Wong SL, et al. The absorbable dermal staple device: a faster, more cost-effective method for incisional closure. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(1):156–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Dresner HS, Hilger PA. Comparison of incision closures with subcuticular and percutaneous staples. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2009;11(5):320–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Murphy PG, Tadros E, Cross S, et al. Skin closure and the incidence of groin wound infection: a prospective study. Ann Vasc Surg. 1995;9(5):480–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Abdus-Salam RA, Bello FA, Olayemi O. A randomized study comparing skin staples with subcuticular sutures for wound closure at caesarean section in black-skinned women. Int Sch Res Not. 2014;2014:807937.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Duteille F, Rouif M, Alfandari B, et al. Reduction of skin closure time without loss of healing quality: a multicenter prospective study in 100 patients comparing the use of Insorb absorbable staples with absorbable thread for dermal suture. Surg Innov. 2013;20(1):70–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Moore DC, Sellers MH, Archer KR, Schwartz HS, Holt GE. Staples equal sutures for skin closure after soft tissue tumor resection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(3):899–904.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Ko JH, Yang IH, Ko MS, Kamolhuja E, Park KK. Do zip-type skin-closing devices show better wound status compared to conventional staple devices in total knee arthroplasty? Int Wound J. 2017;14(1):250–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    dos Santos LR, Freitas CA, Hojaij FC, et al. Prospective study using skin staplers in head and neck surgery. Am J Surg. 1995;170(5):451–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Chen D, Song J, Zhao Y, Zheng X, Yu A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical zipper technique versus intracutaneous sutures for the closing of surgical incision. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162471.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Richter D, Stoff A, Ramakrishnan V, Exner K, Jernbeck J, Blondeel PN. A comparison of a new skin closure device and intradermal sutures in the closure of full-thickness surgical incisions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(4):843–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Carcoforo P, Jorizzo EF, Maestroni U, Soliani G, Navarra G. A new device for sutureless skin closure “the zipper”. Ann Ital Chir. 2002;73(1):75–9; discussion 79–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Mitwalli H, Dolan C, Bacigalupi R, Khorasani H. A randomized, controlled, prospective clinical study comparing a novel skin closure device to conventional suturing. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(1):173–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Brega-Massone PP, Lequaglie C, Magnani B, Cataldo I. A new proposal of skin-closure system for median sternotomy: usefulness and cosmetic results analysis of MEDIZIP Surgical Zipper in neoplastic immuno-compromised patients. J Surg Oncol. 2003;84(4):249–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Gorsulowsky DC, Talmor G. A novel noninvasive wound closure device as the final layer in skin closure. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41(8):987–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Deerenberg EB, Goyen HJ, Kaufmann R, Jeekel J, Munte K. A novel foil flip-over system as the final layer in wound closure: excellent cosmetic results and patient comfort. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(11):1829–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Barnea Y, Gur E, Amir A, et al. Our experience with Wisebands: a new skin and soft-tissue stretch device. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113(3):862–9; discussion 870–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Cohen BH, Cosmetto AJ. The suture tension adjustment reel. A new device for the management of skin closure. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1992;18(2):112–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Cunningham T, Marks M. Vacuum-assisted closure device and skin substitutes for complex Mohs defects. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(Suppl 9):S120–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Topaz M, Carmel NN, Topaz G, Li M, Li YZ. Stress-relaxation and tension relief system for immediate primary closure of large and huge soft tissue defects: an old-new concept: new concept for direct closure of large defects. Medicine. 2014;93(28):e234.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Correnti
    • 1
  • Kaitlin Blankenship
    • 2
  • Nicole Ufkes
    • 3
  • John Strasswimmer
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of DermatologyUniversity of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of DermatologyUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA
  3. 3.Medical University of South Carolina College of MedicineCharlestonUSA
  4. 4.Florida Atlantic University College of MedicineBoca RatonUSA
  5. 5.Strasswimmer + Smirnov DermatologyDelray BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations