Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sutures, Adhesives, Staples, and Other Closure Technologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evidence-Based Procedural Dermatology

  • 1569 Accesses

Abstract

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Mackenzie D. The history of sutures. Med Hist. 1973;17(2):158–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Al-Mubarak L, Al-Haddab M. Cutaneous wound closure materials: an overview and update. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2013;6(4):178–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Forsch RT. Essentials of skin laceration repair. Am Fam Physician. 2008;78(8):945–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Forsch RT, Little SH, Williams C. Laceration repair: a practical approach. Am Fam Physician. 2017;95(10):628–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Regula CG, Yag-Howard C. Suture products and techniques: what to use, where, and why. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41(Suppl 10):S187–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Strasswimmer J, Latimer B, Speer H. Barbed absorbable suture closure for large Mohs surgery defect. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149(7):853–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hammond DC. Barbed sutures in plastic surgery: a personal experience. Aesthet Surg J. 2013;33(3 Suppl):32S–9S.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bruns TB, Worthington JM. Using tissue adhesive for wound repair: a practical guide to dermabond. Am Fam Physician. 2000;61(5):1383–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kolt JD. Use of adhesive surgical tape with the absorbable continuous subcuticular suture. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(8):626–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Moody BR, McCarthy JE, Linder J, Hruza GJ. Enhanced cosmetic outcome with running horizontal mattress sutures. Dermatol Surg. 2005;31(10):1313–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Regan T, Lawrence N. Comparison of poliglecaprone-25 and polyglactin-910 in cutaneous surgery. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39(9):1340–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Fiennes AG. Interrupted subcuticular polyglactin sutures for abdominal wounds. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1985;67(2):121.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Scaccia FJ, Hoffman JA, Stepnick DW. Upper eyelid blepharoplasty. A technical comparative analysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994;120(8):827–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Guyuron B, Vaughan C. Comparison of polydioxanone and polyglactin 910 in intradermal repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98(5):817–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 1121

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. MacKinnon AE, Brown S. Skin closure with polyglycolic acid (Dexon). Postgrad Med J. 1978;54(632):384–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Scheman A, Rakowski EM, Sheehan J, Campbell T, Derick A. Contact allergy to poliglecaprone 25 sutures. Cutis. 2016;98(5):E1–e2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Dalvi A, Faria M, Pinto A. Non-suture closure of wound using cyanoacrylate. J Postgrad Med. 1986;32(2):97–100.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Dresner HS, Hilger PA. Comparison of incision closures with subcuticular and percutaneous staples. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2009;11(5):320–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Cunningham T, Marks M. Vacuum-assisted closure device and skin substitutes for complex Mohs defects. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(Suppl 9):S120–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Christina Correnti

  2. Department of Dermatology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

    Kaitlin Blankenship

  3. Medical University of South Carolina College of Medicine, Charleston, SC, USA

    Nicole Ufkes

  4. Florida Atlantic University College of Medicine, Boca Raton, FL, USA

    John Strasswimmer

  5. Strasswimmer + Smirnov Dermatology, Delray Beach, FL, USA

    John Strasswimmer

Authors
  1. Christina Correnti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kaitlin Blankenship
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicole Ufkes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Strasswimmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Murad Alam

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Correnti, C., Blankenship, K., Ufkes, N., Strasswimmer, J. (2019). Sutures, Adhesives, Staples, and Other Closure Technologies. In: Alam, M. (eds) Evidence-Based Procedural Dermatology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02023-1_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02023-1_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02022-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02023-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation