Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Dermatological Research 3/2020

01-04-2020 | Original Paper

5-0 Polypropylene versus 5-0 fast absorbing plain gut for cutaneous wound closure: a randomized evaluator blind trial

Authors: Daniel Brian Eisen, Anne Rang Zhuang, Aliza Hasan, Victoria Rose Sharon, Heejung Bang, Milene Kennedy Crispin

Published in: Archives of Dermatological Research | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
10.
go back to reference Zitelli JA, Moy RL (1989) Buried vertical mattress suture. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 15:17–19CrossRef Zitelli JA, Moy RL (1989) Buried vertical mattress suture. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 15:17–19CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FRH, Botman YAM, et al (2004) The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1960–1965 (discussion 1966–1967) CrossRef Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FRH, Botman YAM, et al (2004) The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1960–1965 (discussion 1966–1967) CrossRef
12.
go back to reference van de Kar AL, Corion LUM, Smeulders MJC et al (2005) Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:514–522CrossRef van de Kar AL, Corion LUM, Smeulders MJC et al (2005) Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:514–522CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Guyuron B, Vaughan C (1992) A comparison of absorbable and nonabsorbable suture materials for skin repair. Plast Reconstr Surg 89:234–236CrossRef Guyuron B, Vaughan C (1992) A comparison of absorbable and nonabsorbable suture materials for skin repair. Plast Reconstr Surg 89:234–236CrossRef
17.
go back to reference 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 CrossRef 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​ CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12CrossRef Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12CrossRef
Metadata
Title
5-0 Polypropylene versus 5-0 fast absorbing plain gut for cutaneous wound closure: a randomized evaluator blind trial
Authors
Daniel Brian Eisen
Anne Rang Zhuang
Aliza Hasan
Victoria Rose Sharon
Heejung Bang
Milene Kennedy Crispin
Publication date
01-04-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Dermatological Research / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-3696
Electronic ISSN: 1432-069X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-019-02009-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Archives of Dermatological Research 3/2020 Go to the issue