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
. 2016 Jun;15(2):243-50.
doi: 10.1007/s12663-015-0809-y. Epub 2015 Jun 4.

Comparison of Skin Staples and Standard Sutures for Closing Incisions After Head and Neck Cancer Surgery: A Double-Blind, Randomized and Prospective Study

Jitender Batra  1 , Rajesh Kumar Bekal  2 , Sunil Byadgi  3 , Gyanander Attresh  4 , Shanender Sambyal  4 , Chinmay Dilip Vakade  5
Affiliations

Comparison of Skin Staples and Standard Sutures for Closing Incisions After Head and Neck Cancer Surgery: A Double-Blind, Randomized and Prospective Study

Jitender Batra et al. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2016 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the merits and demerits of stapled skin closure when compared to conventional sutures in head and neck cancer surgery.

Materials and methods: A total of 80 patients (40 patients each in control and study group) were enrolled. The patients underwent closure of incision wounds following head and neck cancer surgical procedures. Skin incisions were closed with sutures using 3-0 silk in control group and with stainless steel staples in study group. Both the groups were compared for speed of closure, cost effectiveness, pain on removal, patient comfort, aesthetic outcome on day of removal, 15 and 30 days after day of removal and complications.

Results: The mean incision length in control group was 54 ± 16.3 cm while in study group was 53.7 ± 15.4 cm which was statistically not significant (P = 0.95). The mean time of closure in control group was 34.2 ± 12 min while in study group was 3.3 ± 1.2 min which was statistically highly significant (P < 0.001). The mean cost of material for skin closure in control group was Rs. 270.0 ± 46.4 and in study group was Rs. 517.5 ± 135.7 which was also statistically highly significant (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: It was concluded that skin staples are better alternatives to conventional sutures in head and neck cancer surgery as they offer ten times faster wound closure, cost effectiveness, and similar results to sutures in terms of patient comfort, aesthetic outcome and complication rate.

Keywords: Head and neck cancer surgery; Skin closure; Skin staples; Sutures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Armamentarium used
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Closure time (in min) in both the groups
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Aesthetic outcome 30 days after removal of closures in both the groups
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Post-operative complications in both the groups (WD wound dehiscence, PWD prolonged wound discharge)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Pre-operative profile photograph of the patient in study group
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Intra-operative profile photograph of the same patient
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Post-operative profile photograph of the same patient
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hochberg J, Meyer KM, Marion MD. Suture choice and other methods of skin closure. Surg Clin N Am. 2009;89:627–641. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2009.03.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Orlinsky M, Goldberg RM, Chan L, Puertos A, Slajer HL. Cost analysis of stapling versus suturing for skin closure. Am J Emerg Med. 1995;13:77–81. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(95)90248-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Menaker GM (2001) Wound closure materials in the new millennium. Curr Probl Dermatol 13:90–95
    1. Taute RB, Knepil GJ, Whitfield PH. Use of staples for wound apposition in neck incisions. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;47:236–237. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2008.08.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Eaton AC. A controlled trial to evaluate and compare a sutureless skin closure technique (Op-Site Skin Closure) with conventional skin suturing and clipping in abdominal surgery. Br J Surg. 1980;67:857–860. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800671207. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources