Wound healing after open appendectomies in adult patients: a prospective, randomised trial comparing two methods of wound closure. World J Surg. 2012;36:2305-2310. [PMID: 22669400 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-012-1664-3]

Association between skin suture devices and incidence of incisional surgical site infection after gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common complications after abdominal surgery.

AIM

To compare which suture devices could reduce the incidence of incisional surgical site infections (SSIs) after gastrointestinal surgery using a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

METHODS

The CENTRAL, PubMed, and ICHUSHI-Web databases were searched from January 1st, 2000, to December 31st, 2022, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the incidence of incisional SSI after gastrointestinal surgery among patients treated with different surgical suture devices, including non-absorbable sutures, absorbable sutures, skin staplers, and tissue adhesives (last searched in August 23th, 2023). The risk of bias was assessed using the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. To estimate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) for each comparison, a fixed-effect inverse-variance model based on the Mantel-Haenszel approach was employed.

FINDINGS

A total of 18 RCTs with 5496 patients were included in this study. The overall SSIs in absorbable sutures were significantly lower than those in skin staplers (OR: 0.77; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.63-0.95) and non-absorbable sutures (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39-0.99), whereas SSIs in absorbable sutures were not significantly different from the SSIs in tissue adhesive. The highest P-score was 0.91 for absorbable sutures. A funnel plot for estimating the heterogeneity of the studies revealed that a publication bias would be minimal (Egger test, P = 0.271).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that absorbable sutures reduced incisional SSIs in gastrointestinal surgical operations compared to any other suture devices.

Successful Use of Percutaneous Dissolvable Sutures During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has had dramatic effects on all fields of medicine, including an effort to limit in-person visits. Within dermatologic surgery, one strategy is to close surgical incisions using percutaneous absorbable sutures. To the authors' knowledge, there are no large studies comparing changes in suture preferences and subsequent outcomes during the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

To assess changes in suture preference and frequency of post-operative complications for percutaneous absorbable and non-absorbable sutures during the pandemic.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 1358 Mohs surgeries completed at the Cleveland Clinic during a 2-month period prior to COVID-19 and a matched 2-month period during the pandemic.

RESULTS

Sutures were used to close 1103 cases. Significantly more closures were performed with percutaneous absorbable sutures during COVID-19 (87.6%, 39.6%; P < .0001). There was no significant difference in the frequency of post-operative complications between suture materials (P = .48). The use of absorbable sutures were associated with a significantly higher frequency of suture hypersensitivity reaction (P = .020) but significantly lower frequency of infection (P = .021) and wound dehiscence (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Suture preference shifted towards absorbable sutures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Percutaneous absorbable sutures offered a formidable alternative to non-absorbable sutures and could reduce in-person follow-up visits without increasing post-operative complications.

Prospective randomized trial of skin closure for pacemaker implantation: absorbable vs. non-absorbable suture : PRO-PACE

BACKGROUND

Pacemaker implantations have been performed for > 50 years, reaching 1.25 million implants worldwide per year. Despite this, only few randomized studies exist regarding technical aspects of the implantation procedure-in particular, wound closure. Accordingly, the authors compared absorbable vs. non-absorbable suture regarding wound healing.

METHODS

Consecutive patients scheduled for de novo pacemaker implantation without defibrillation therapy were prospectively randomized into two groups: non-absorbable (Prolene®, Ethicon Inc.) or absorbable suture (Monocryl®, Ethicon Inc.). The wound was systematically assessed for cosmetic outcome at 1 day, 6 weeks, and 1 year post implantation using the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS). Adverse events noted included bleeding, pocket hematoma, infection, suture insufficiency, and revision surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients (mean age: 79 ± 10 years, n = 60 male) were randomized into the two groups. Of these, 105 completed follow-up (lost to follow-up: 7.9%). Groups were comparable for clinical characteristics or use of oral anticoagulants. There was no difference in cosmetic outcome and incidence of adverse events at any follow-up visit. POSAS scores were: 1 day: 1.4 ± 0.4 vs. 1.3 ± 0.4, P = 0.44, 6 weeks: 1.4 ± 0.6 vs. 1.4 ± 0.7, P = 0.57; 1 year: 1.4 ± 1.4 vs. 2.1 ± 3, P = 0.60. No pocket hematoma or infection occurred in either group. No additional surgery was necessary for local findings. Retrospectively, scar development was straight in the Prolene® group and slightly wavy with Monocryl®.

CONCLUSION

Suture material does not influence wound healing as represented by the cosmetic result and the occurrence of adverse events. The choice of suture material used should be left to the physician's discretion.

A meta-analysis on continuous versus interrupted skin closure following appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review was to analyse RCTs comparing wound-related outcomes between continuous subcuticular and interrupted transdermal wound closures for open appendicectomies in all age groups.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in April 2020 (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, PROSPERO, Google Scholar, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). RCTs without restrictions on study language, year, status of publication, and patient age were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk-of-bias tool for RCTs. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) for binary and continuous variables were calculated using random-effects models. A summary-of-findings table was generated to assess the level of evidence.

RESULTS

Eleven trials were included (1781 patients analysed, 891 in continuous and 890 in interrupted groups). The overall rate of wound infection was 7.1 per cent. There was no significant difference in the risk of wound infection (11 trials, 1781 patients; RR 1.13, 95 per cent c.i. 0.77 to 1.66; P = 0.530) or wound exploration (7 trials, 1129 patients; RR 0.74, 0.41 to 1.34, P = 0.320) between the two groups. Continuous wound closure had a significantly reduced risk of wound dehiscence (6 trials, 865 patients; RR 0.16, 0.05 to 0.50; P = 0.002) and smaller wound scar (3 trials, 417 patients; MD -2.11 (95 per cent c.i. -2.57 to -1.66) mm; P < 0.001). The absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat for wound dehiscence were 6.1 per cent and 16 respectively. There was no significant statistical heterogeneity for all outcomes (I2 0-15 per cent, χ2 P > 0.100). Most RCTs had a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Continuous subcuticular open appendicectomy wound closure is not associated with an increased risk of wound infection and exploration. This method of closure has a reduced risk of wound dehiscence and better cosmetic outcomes.

The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infections (SSIs) were published in Japanese by the Japan Society for Surgical Infection in 2018. This is a summary of these guidelines for medical professionals worldwide.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenterological SSIs, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Modifications were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the general public and relevant medical societies.

RESULTS

There were 44 questions prepared in seven subject areas, for which 51 recommendations were made. The seven subject areas were: definition and etiology, diagnosis, preoperative management, prophylactic antibiotics, intraoperative management, perioperative management, and wound management. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information. The final version of the recommendations was published in 2018, in Japanese.

CONCLUSIONS

The Japanese Guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological SSI were published in 2018 to provide useful information for clinicians and improve the clinical outcome of patients.

Subcuticular sutures for skin closure in non-obstetric surgery

BACKGROUND

Following surgery, surgical wounds can be closed using a variety of devices including sutures (subcuticular or transdermal), staples and tissue adhesives. Subcuticular sutures are intradermal stitches (placed immediately below the epidermal layer). The increased availability of synthetic absorbable filaments (stitches which are absorbed by the body and do not have to be removed) has led to an increased use of subcuticular sutures. However, in non-obstetric surgery, there is still controversy about whether subcuticular sutures increase the incidence of wound complications.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and acceptability of subcuticular sutures for skin closure in non-obstetric surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials which compared subcuticular sutures with any other methods for skin closure in non-obstetric surgery were included in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials, extracted data and carried out risk of bias and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 studies (7487 participants); 11 included trials had more than two arms. Most trials had poorly-reported methodology, meaning that it is unclear whether they were at high risk of bias. Most trials compared subcuticular sutures with transdermal sutures, skin staples or tissue adhesives. Most outcomes prespecified in the review protocol were reported. The certainty of evidence varied from high to very low in the comparisons of subcuticular sutures with transdermal sutures or staples and tissue adhesives; the certainty of the evidence for the comparison with surgical tapes and zippers was low to very low. Most evidence was downgraded for imprecision or risk of bias. Although the majority of studies enrolled people who underwent CDC class 1 (clean) surgeries, two-thirds of participants were enrolled in studies which included CDC class 2 to 4 surgeries, such as appendectomies and gastrointestinal surgeries. Most participants were adults in a hospital setting. Subcuticular sutures versus transdermal sutures There may be little difference in the incidence of SSI (risk ratio (RR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.52; 3107 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether subcuticular sutures reduce wound complications (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.71; 1489 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Subcuticular sutures probably improve patient satisfaction (score from 1 to 10) (at 30 days; MD 1.60, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.88; 290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Wound closure time is probably longer when subcuticular sutures are used (MD 5.81 minutes; 95% CI 5.13 to 6.49 minutes; 585 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Subcuticular sutures versus skin staples There is moderate-certainty evidence that, when compared with skin staples, subcuticular sutures probably have little effect on SSI (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.01; 4163 participants); but probably decrease the incidence of wound complications (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.98; 2973 participants). Subcuticular sutures are associated with slightly higher patient satisfaction (score from 1 to 5) (MD 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.30; 1232 participants; high-certainty evidence). Wound closure time may also be longer compared with staples (MD 0.30 to 5.50 minutes; 1384 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subcuticular sutures versus tissue adhesives, surgical tapes and zippers There is moderate-certainty evidence showing no clear difference in the incidence of SSI between participants treated with subcuticular sutures and those treated with tissue adhesives (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.45; 869 participants). There is also no clear difference in the incidence of wound complications (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.11; 1058 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subcuticular sutures may also achieve lower patient satisfaction ratings (score from 1 to 10) (MD -2.05, 95% CI -3.05 to -1.05; 131 participants) (low-certainty evidence). In terms of SSI incidence, the evidence is uncertain when subcuticular sutures are compared with surgical tapes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.27; 354 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or surgical zippers (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.08 to 8.48; 424 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little difference in the incidence of wound complications between participants treated with subcuticular sutures and those treated with surgical tapes (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.34; 492 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether subcuticular sutures reduce the risk of wound complications compared with surgical zippers (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.04; 424 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether it takes longer to close a wound with subcuticular sutures compared with tissue adhesives (MD -0.34 to 10.39 minutes; 895 participants), surgical tapes (MD 0.74 to 6.36 minutes; 169 participants) or zippers (MD 4.38 to 8.25 minutes; 424 participants) (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported results for patient satisfaction compared with surgical tapes or zippers.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear difference in the incidence of SSI for subcuticular sutures in comparison with any other skin closure methods. Subcuticular sutures probably reduce wound complications compared with staples, and probably improve patient satisfaction compared with transdermal sutures or staples. However, tissue adhesives may improve patient satisfaction compared with subcuticular sutures, and transdermal sutures and skin staples may be quicker to apply than subcuticular sutures. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low; evidence for almost all comparisons was subject to some limitations. There seems to be no need for additional new trials to explore the comparison with staples because there are high-quality studies with large sample sizes and some ongoing studies. However, there is a need for studies exploring the comparisons with transdermal sutures, tissue adhesives, tapes and zippers, with high-quality studies and large sample sizes, including long-term assessments.

Intraoperative surgical site infection control and prevention: a position paper and future addendum to WSES intra-abdominal infections guidelines

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSI) represent a considerable burden for healthcare systems. They are largely preventable and multiple interventions have been proposed over past years in an attempt to prevent SSI. We aim to provide a position paper on Operative Room (OR) prevention of SSI in patients presenting with intra-abdominal infection to be considered a future addendum to the well-known World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) Guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infections.

METHODS

The literature was searched for focused publications on SSI until March 2019. Critical analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group of experts; the literature review and the statements were evaluated by a Steering Committee of the WSES.

RESULTS

Wound protectors and antibacterial sutures seem to have effective roles to prevent SSI in intra-abdominal infections. The application of negative-pressure wound therapy in preventing SSI can be useful in reducing postoperative wound complications. It is important to pursue normothermia with the available resources in the intraoperative period to decrease SSI rate. The optimal knowledge of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics of antibiotics helps to decide when additional intraoperative antibiotic doses should be administered in patients with intra-abdominal infections undergoing emergency surgery to prevent SSI.

CONCLUSIONS

The current position paper offers an extensive overview of the available evidence regarding surgical site infection control and prevention in patients having intra-abdominal infections.

Drainage tube hole suture improvement: Removal-free stitches

Surgical method improvements aim to optimize the patient experience. The problem of healing of the drainage tube hole has not received attention and is of concern because it can plague patient recovery. In this article we report on how we have improved the method of suturing the drainage tube hole and explore the safety and effectiveness of this method. Between December 2017 to August 2018, 102 patients underwent thoracoscopic lung resection (single port or single utility port) using different methods of suturing drainage tube holes. The intervention group received improved methods with subcuticular and intradermal suture and removal-free stitches, whilst the control group received a conventional mattress suture and fixed chest tube. A preset line was left to tie knots and close the hole after the removal of the chest tube. The stitches were removed 7-12 days after surgery. The baseline clinical features of the patients were subsequently analyzed. The objective and subjective conditions of scars were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) at one month after surgery. The intervention group (n = 71) and control group (n = 31) had balanced baseline clinical characteristics. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of three-day postoperative pain and postoperative hospital stay. In the intervention group, three patients (4.23%) had wound splitting that required re-suturing, which was better than five patients (16.13%) in the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of pleural fluid outflow, wound infection, post-removal pneumothorax, chest tube prolapse and incisional hernia were not different between the two groups. We conclude that the objective and subjective evaluation results of scars were significantly different between the two groups (P < 0.05), and the experimental group was superior to the control group. A balanced result between aesthetic appearance and safety as regards video-assisted thoracic surgery can be achieved through the chest tube hole improved suture method. This method also improves the patient's recovery experience.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Running Versus Interrupted Subcuticular Sutures for Skin Closure in Open Gastric Surgery

Objective:

The aim of this study was to compare the scar quality associated with different types of subcuticular suture techniques: running or interrupted.

Summary of Background Data:

Subcuticular suture is a preferred skin closure method even in gastrointestinal surgery. Two methods for subcuticular suture are used: running or interrupted sutures.

Methods:

Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 20 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists performance status 1 to 3; histologically proven adenocarcinoma of the stomach; no evidence of distant metastases or disease considered unresectable; no prior upper abdominal surgery; no uncontrolled infections, diabetes, or cardiac disease; and adequate renal function. Patients were randomly assigned to running subcuticular suture or interrupted subcuticular suture. Scar areas were calculated using a digital photograph calculator at about 7 months after surgery. The observer scar assessment scale (OSAS) was used for scar assessment.

Results:

Between April 10, 2009, and February 28, 2012, 220 patients were enrolled into this study and 201 patients were evaluated. There was no difference in scar area between the interrupted group and the running group [0.97 cm2 (95% CI: 0.73–1.21) in the interrupted group and 1.17 cm2 (95% CI: 0.91–1.42, P = 0.27) in the running group]. Three observers performed the OSAS, for which no significant difference was detected across the closure groups.

Conclusions:

There were no significant differences in cosmetic outcomes between running and interrupted subcuticular sutures. The final decision about the choice of method should be made balancing surgeon needs (time-saving with running) and surgeon techniques (running might be difficult).

Retrospective observational cohort study on cosmetic outcome of using Ti-Ni memory alloy wire for intradermal suture following mastectomy in patients with breast cancer

The method of suturing for incisions is crucial for the comprehensive treatment of clinical patients with breast cancer. Suturing is considered a major part of post-surgical recovery and may serve as a marker for evaluation of surgical outcome. The present study aimed to establish an effective means of suturing for patients who received modified radical surgery that helps to improve the cosmetic outcome of the incision. Enrolled patients were divided into an active and a control group. Ti-Ni memory alloy wire for intradermal suture in the active group and silk for interruption suture in the control group were applied to assess the different prognosis-associated factors. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used to evaluate the wound size and the recovery time of the scars. The association between diabetes and the number of days of wound healing was also analyzed. The results indicated that the mean VSS score of the active group was decreased compared with that of the control group (P<0.001). The VSS scores of four main features (vascularity, pigmentation, pliability and height) between the two groups also statistically differed (P<0.001). Furthermore, the mean number of days of wound healing was significantly decreased for the active group compared with that for the control group (P=0.0026) in the patients with diabetes. In addition, the usage of Ti-Ni memory alloy wire was able to decrease the mean number of wound healing days between patients with diabetes and their non-diabetic counterparts (P=0.7009). The present study indicated that intradermal suture offers improved cosmetic outcome for patients undergoing mastectomy with or without axillary surgery. This technique may be useful for preventing scar overgrowth and for facilitating the recovery process in patients with diabetes.

Absorbable Versus Nonabsorbable Sutures for Skin Closure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Prior studies focused on skin closure using absorbable or nonabsorbable sutures involved small samples and produced conflicting results. The optimal method of skin closure still remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures for skin closure.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outcomes of absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures for skin closure.

RESULTS

A total of 1748 patients in 19 RCTs were analyzed. There was no significant difference between absorbable sutures and nonabsorbable sutures in the incidence of wound infections, cosmetic outcomes, scar formation, wound dehiscence, and patients' or patient caregivers' satisfaction. Better cosmetic results were achieved by using intradermal absorbable sutures compared with nonabsorbable sutures in subgroup analysis, but this result might be affected by insufficient follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

Absorbable sutures for skin closure were not inferior to nonabsorbable sutures. It should be recommended due to its great cost and time savings. Well-designed RCTs with sufficient follow-ups are needed to adequately clarify whether better cosmetic results can be achieved using intradermal absorbable sutures.

Systematic review of absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions

AIM

To report a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the role of absorbable suture (AS) against non-AS (NAS) used for the closure of surgical incisions.

METHODS

RCTs investigating the use of AS vs NAS for the closure of surgical incisions were statistically analysed based upon the principles of meta-analysis and the summated outcomes were represented as OR.

RESULTS

The systematic search of medical literature yielded 10 RCTs on 1354 patients. Prevalence of wound infection (OR = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.56, 1.69; Z = 0.11; P = 0.92) and operative morbidity (P = 0.45) was comparable in both groups. Nonetheless, the use of AS lead to lower risk of wound break-down (OR = 0.12; 95%CI: 0.04, 0.39; Z = 3.52; P < 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of 10 RCTs demonstrates that the use of AS is similar to NAS for skin closure for surgical site infection and other operative morbidities. AS do not increase the risk of skin wound dehiscence, rather lead to a reduced risk of wound dehiscence compared to NAS.

Continuous absorbable intradermal sutures yield better cosmetic results than nonabsorbable interrupted sutures in open appendectomy wounds: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is the most common reason for abdominal surgery in young adults and children. Open appendectomy is still the treatment often chosen because it is simple, safe, and effective. Our aim was to study whether cosmetic results of appendectomy wounds are better after using continuous absorbable intradermal (A) sutures compared with wound closure with interrupted nonabsorbable (NA) sutures.

METHODS

A total of 206 adult patients with clinically suspected appendicitis were allocated to the study and prospectively randomized into two wound-closure groups: the interrupted NA suture group and the A suture group. Of these, 193 patients with sufficient data were invited to the outpatient clinic for cosmetic analysis. Cosmetic results were evaluated after a median of 14 months. For subjective scar assessment, the Vancouver scar scale, the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS), and a visual analog scale (VAS) were used. Objective evaluation was carried out by measuring surface area, average width, and estimated concentration change (ECC) of hemoglobin and melanin in the scar using spectrocutometry. For statistical analyses we used the Mann-Whitney test and Student's t test.

RESULTS

Both objective and subjective analyses showed better cosmetic results for absorbable intradermal suturing. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant as regards POSAS in both patient (p = 0.032) and observer scales (p = 0.001), and VAS (p = 0.002). Scar surface area was significantly smaller in group A than in group NA (p = 0.002). ECC measurements showed higher values for melanin in group NA than in group A (p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Continuous intradermal absorbable suturing yields a better cosmetic result than interrupted nonabsorbable suturing in lower abdominal transverse appendectomy.

Continuous versus interrupted skin sutures for non-obstetric surgery

BACKGROUND

Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin, allowing the surgeon to gain access to the surgical site. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure; this review focuses on these closed wounds. There are many ways to close the surgical incision, for example, using sutures (stitches), staples, tissue adhesives or tapes. Skin sutures can be continuous or interrupted. In general, continuous sutures are usually subcuticular and can be absorbable or non-absorbable, while interrupted sutures are usually non-absorbable and involve the full thickness of the skin - although some surgeons do use absorbable interrupted sutures.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of continuous compared with interrupted skin closure techniques in participants undergoing non-obstetric surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

In August 2013 we searched the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared skin closure using continuous sutures with skin closure using interrupted sutures, irrespective of whether there were differences in the nature of the suture materials used in the two groups. We included all relevant RCTs in the analysis, irrespective of language of publication, publication status, publication year or sample size.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for comparing binary outcomes between the groups, and calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for comparing continuous outcomes. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model. We performed intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with a total of 827 participants. Outcomes were available for 730 participants (384 participants randomised to continuous sutures and 346 participants to interrupted sutures). All the trials were of unclear or high risk of bias. The participants underwent abdominal or groin operations. The only outcomes reported in the trials were superficial surgical site infection, superficial wound dehiscence (breakdown) and length of hospital stay. Other important outcomes such as quality of life, long-term patient outcomes and use of healthcare resources were not reported in these trials.Overall, 6.5% (39/602 participants, four trials) developed superficial surgical site infections. There was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of participants who developed superficial surgical site infections (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.33). A total of 23 participants (23/625 (3.7%), four trials) developed superficial wound dehiscence. Twenty-two of the 23 participants belonged to the interrupted suture group.The proportion of participants who developed superficial wound dehiscence was statistically significantly lower in the continuous suture group compared to the interrupted suture group (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.35). Most of these wound dehiscences were reported in two recent trials in which the continuous skin suture groups received absorbable subcuticular sutures while the interrupted skin suture groups received non-absorbable transcutaneous sutures. The non-absorbable sutures were removed seven to nine days after surgery in the interrupted sutures groups whilst sutures in the comparator groups were not removed, being absorbable. The continuous suture technique with absorbable suture does not require suture removal and provides support for the wound for a longer period of time. This may have contributed to the difference between the two groups in the proportion of participants who developed superficial wound dehiscence. There was no significant difference in the length of the hospital stay between the two groups (MD -1.40 days; 95% CI -7.14 to 4.34).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Superficial wound dehiscence may be reduced by using continuous subcuticular sutures. However, there is uncertainty about this because of the quality of the evidence. Besides, the nature of the suture material used may have led to this observation, as the continuous suturing technique used suture material that did not need to be removed, whereas the comparator used interrupted (non-absorbable) sutures that did need to be removed. Differences in the methods of skin closure have the potential to affect patient outcomes and use of healthcare resources. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias are necessary to determine which type of suturing is better.