Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 4/2014

01-10-2014 | Maternal-Fetal Medicine

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

Authors: Chanderdeep Sharma, Ashok Verma, Anjali Soni, Meghna Thusoo, V. K. Mahajan, Suresh Verma

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 4/2014

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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 204:378–383PubMedCrossRef 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 204:378–383PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Mackeen AD, Berghella V, Larsen ML (2012) Techniques for skin closure in caesarean section. Cochrane database Syst Rev 11:CD003577PubMed Mackeen AD, Berghella V, Larsen ML (2012) Techniques for skin closure in caesarean section. Cochrane database Syst Rev 11:CD003577PubMed
3.
go back to reference 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 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
4.
go back to reference 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 138:29–33PubMedCrossRef 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 138:29–33PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference 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 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
6.
go back to reference 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 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
7.
go back to reference 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 165:47–52PubMedCrossRef 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 165:47–52PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference 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 113:1960–1965PubMedCrossRef 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 113:1960–1965PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference 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 116:514–522PubMedCrossRef 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 116:514–522PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Niessen FB, Spauwen PH, Kon M (1997) The role of suture material in hypertrophic scar formation: Monocryl vs Vicryl-rapide. Ann Plast Surg 39:254–260PubMedCrossRef Niessen FB, Spauwen PH, Kon M (1997) The role of suture material in hypertrophic scar formation: Monocryl vs Vicryl-rapide. Ann Plast Surg 39:254–260PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference 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 85:955–959PubMedCrossRef 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 85:955–959PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Frishman GN, Schwartz T, Hogan JW (1997) Closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions. Staples vs. subcuticular suture. J Reprod Med 42:627–630PubMed Frishman GN, Schwartz T, Hogan JW (1997) Closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions. Staples vs. subcuticular suture. J Reprod Med 42:627–630PubMed
13.
go back to reference 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):33–38PubMed 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):33–38PubMed
Metadata
Title
A randomized controlled trial comparing cosmetic outcome after skin closure with ‘staples’ or ‘subcuticular sutures’ in emergency Cesarean section
Authors
Chanderdeep Sharma
Ashok Verma
Anjali Soni
Meghna Thusoo
V. K. Mahajan
Suresh Verma
Publication date
01-10-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3274-9

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 4/2014 Go to the issue