Fast absorbing gut sutures in dermatologic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Dermatology
Mohs
Reconstruction
Surgery
Suture
Journal
Archives of dermatological research
ISSN: 1432-069X
Titre abrégé: Arch Dermatol Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8000462
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Jun 2024
08 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
11
01
2024
accepted:
26
04
2024
revised:
22
04
2024
medline:
8
6
2024
pubmed:
8
6
2024
entrez:
8
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fast gut cutaneous sutures have become more prominent due to their low tissue reactivity, rapid absorption, and elimination of suture removal visits. It is not known how fast gut sutures compare to other closure modalities. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing fast gut sutures to alternative closure methods during dermatologic surgery. Data collected included patient and physician assessed cosmetic outcome as well as standardized complication rates. Six studies were included in final analysis and reported on 208 patients. Fast gut sutures were associated with lower physician opinions of final scar when compared to polypropylene sutures (SMD 0.438; 95% CI 0.082 to 0.794). No differences existed between physician opinion of fast gut sutures and cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (SMD - 0.024; 95% CI - 0.605 to 0.556). Complications with fast gut suture placement were rare, and included infection, dehiscence, and hematomas. Fast gut sutures were less likely to experience wound dehiscence than tissue adhesive (p = 0.01). If no contraindications to polypropylene sutures exist, they may provide superior cosmetic outcomes compared to fast gut sutures. Further research is required to better quantify cosmetic outcomes and optimal use of fast gut sutures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38850366
doi: 10.1007/s00403-024-02973-7
pii: 10.1007/s00403-024-02973-7
doi:
Substances chimiques
Tissue Adhesives
0
Polypropylenes
0
Cyanoacrylates
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Meta-Analysis
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
351Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Leonard AL, Hanke CW (2007) Second intention healing for intermediate and large postsurgical defects of the lip. J Am Acad Dermatol 57(5):832–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2006.07.030
doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2006.07.030
pubmed: 17939934
Asgari MM, Warton EM, Neugebauer R, Chren MM (2011) Predictors of patient satisfaction with Mohs surgery: analysis of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors in a prospective cohort. Arch Dermatol 147(12):1387–1394. https://doi.org/10.1001/archdermatol.2011.319
doi: 10.1001/archdermatol.2011.319
pubmed: 22184760
pmcid: 3620041
Al-Mubarak L, Al-Haddab M (2013) Cutaneous wound closure materials: an overview and update. J Cutan Aesthet Surg 6(4):178–188. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-2077.123395
doi: 10.4103/0974-2077.123395
pubmed: 24470712
pmcid: 3884880
Luck RP, Flood R, Eyal D, Saludades J, Hayes C, Gaughan J (2008) Cosmetic outcomes of absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures in pediatric facial lacerations. Pediatr Emerg Care 24(3):137–142. https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0b013e3181666f87
doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e3181666f87
pubmed: 18347489
Kim J, Singh Maan H, Cool AJ, Hanlon AM, Leffell DJ (2015) Fast absorbing gut suture versus cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive in the epidermal closure of linear repairs following Mohs micrographic surgery. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 8(2):24–29
pubmed: 25741400
pmcid: 4345930
Kouba DJ, Tierney E, Mahmoud BH, Woo D (2011) Optimizing closure materials for upper lid blepharoplasty: a randomized, controlled trial. Dermatol Surg 37(1):19–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2010.01834.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2010.01834.x
pubmed: 21199097
Ethicon (2020) 1916G Fast absorbing surgical gut suture (plain). https://www.ethicon.com/na/epc/code/1916g?lang=en-default . Accessed 6 Aug 2020
Joshi AS, Janjanin S, Tanna N, Geist C, Lindsey WH (2007) Does suture material and technique really matter? Lessons learned from 800 consecutive blepharoplasties. Laryngoscope 117(6):981–984. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLG.0b013e31804f54bd
doi: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e31804f54bd
pubmed: 17545862
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 350:g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647
pubmed: 25555855
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(7):1960–1965. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000122207.28773.56 . (discussion 1966–7)
doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000122207.28773.56
pubmed: 15253184
Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ et al (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Wallace BC, Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, Lau J, Trow P, Schmid CH (2012) Closing the gap between methodologists and end-users: R as a computational back-end. 49(5):15. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v049.i05
DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
pubmed: 3802833
Susong JR, Neiner JR (2018) Effect of petrolatum coating on fast-absorbing gut suture. J Am Acad Dermatol 79(5):952–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.04.041
doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.04.041
pubmed: 29723559
Todd PS, Gordon SC, Rovner RL, Tung R (2016) Eruptive penile syringomas in an adolescent: novel approach with serial microexcisions and suture-adhesive repair. Pediatr Dermatol 33(2):e57-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/pde.12745
doi: 10.1111/pde.12745
pubmed: 26764082
Pourang A, Crispin MK, Clark AK, Armstrong AW, Sivamani RK, Eisen DB (2019) Use of 5-0 fast absorbing gut versus 6-0 fast absorbing gut during cutaneous wound closure on the head and neck: a randomized evaluator-blinded split-wound comparative effectiveness trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 81(1):213–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2019.02.037
doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.02.037
pubmed: 30797848
Eisen DB, Zhuang AR, Hasan A, Sharon VR, Bang H, Crispin MK (2020) 5-0 polypropylene versus 5-0 fast absorbing plain gut for cutaneous wound closure: a randomized evaluator blind trial. Arch Dermatol Res 312(3):179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-019-02009-5
doi: 10.1007/s00403-019-02009-5
pubmed: 31724097
Zhuang AR, Beroukhim K, Armstrong AW, Sivamani RK, Eisen DB (2020) Comparison of 2-octylcyanoacrylate versus 5-0 fast-absorbing gut during linear wound closures and the effect on wound cosmesis. Dermatol Surg 46(5):628–634. https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000002076
doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000002076
pubmed: 31403536
Tierney EP, Moy RL, Kouba DJ (2009) Rapid absorbing gut suture versus 2-octylethylcyanoacrylate tissue adhesive in the epidermal closure of linear repairs. J Drugs Dermatol 8(2):115–119
pubmed: 19213225
Athre RS, Park J, Leach JL (2007) The effect of a hydrogen peroxide wound care regimen on tensile strength of suture. Arch Facial Plast Surg 9(4):281–284. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.9.4.281
doi: 10.1001/archfaci.9.4.281
pubmed: 17638764
Bloom R, Do D (2019) Practical needle driver cleaning technique when using fast-absorbing plain gut sutures for facial defect repair. J Am Acad Dermatol 80(6):e147–e148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.07.020
doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.07.020
pubmed: 30055203
Souza SC, Briglia C, Costa SR (2012) Repair of cutaneous wounds with the use of low cost surgical glue. An Bras Dermatol 87(2):241–249. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0365-05962012000200008
doi: 10.1590/s0365-05962012000200008
pubmed: 22570028