Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Dec 27;6(12):241-7.
doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v6.i12.241.

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

Affiliations

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

Muhammad S Sajid et al. World J Gastrointest Surg. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Absorbable sutures; Non-absorbable suture; Skin closure; Surgical site infection; Wound dehiscence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow chart showing trial selection methodology. RCT: Randomized controlled trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Strength and summary of the evidence analysed on GradePro®.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot for surgical site infection following the use of absorbable suture and non-absorbable suture for skin closure. Odds ratios are shown with 95%CI. AS: Absorbable stitch; NAS: Non-absorbable stitch.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot for postoperative complications following the use of absorbable suture and non-absorbable suture for skin closure. Odds ratios are shown with 95%CI. AS: Absorbable stitch; NAS: Non-absorbable stitch.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot for the risk of wound dehiscence following the use of absorbable suture and non-absorbable suture for skin closure. Odds ratios are shown with 95%CI. AS: Absorbable stitch; NAS: Non-absorbable stitch.

References

    1. Osifo OD, Osagie TO. Outcomes of skin closure with suture materials in clean paediatric surgical procedures. Afr J Med Med Sci. 2011;40:147–152. - PubMed
    1. Richey ML, Roe SC. Assessment of knot security in continuous intradermal wound closures. J Surg Res. 2005;123:284–288. - PubMed
    1. Brown JK, Campbell BT, Drongowski RA, Alderman AK, Geiger JD, Teitelbaum DH, Quinn J, Coran AG, Hirschl RB. A prospective, randomized comparison of skin adhesive and subcuticular suture for closure of pediatric hernia incisions: cost and cosmetic considerations. J Pediatr Surg. 2009;44:1418–1422. - PubMed
    1. Patel RM, Cayo M, Patel A, Albarillo M, Puri L. Wound complications in joint arthroplasty: comparing traditional and modern methods of skin closure. Orthopedics. 2012;35:e641–e646. - PubMed
    1. 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;29:626–628. - PubMed