Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after carpal tunnel decompression surgery

Absorbable vs. non-absorbable suture: which one gives better results?

BACKGROUND

There is no ideal suture material or ideal sewing technique. The type of suture material affects the quality of the scars. Patient and surgeon satisfaction with the quality and comfort of the scar is one of the main goals of modern surgery.

AIMS

This study aims to compare the quality of scars and patient satisfaction after using two different types of sutures.

METHODS

This research was conducted as a prospective study that included 64 patients whose surgical wounds were closed with intradermal suture using different suturing materials according to which the patients were divided into two groups: absorbable - Monocryle (32) and non-absorbable - DemeLENE suture (32). POSAS scale and an ultrasound machine were used to assess the scars. The doctor and the patient evaluated seven parameters on two occasions, after 2 and 6 weeks after the surgery.

RESULTS

The statistically significant advantage was found after 2 weeks in scars sewn with non-resorptive suture in terms of elasticity, doctor's general impression, pain, itching, color, stiffness, thickness, irregularity, and patient's general impression. After 6 weeks, statistically significantly better results were shown on scars sewn with non-resorptive thread for the parameters doctor's general impression, itching, irregularity, and patient's general impression.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-resorptive sutures show statistically significantly better results, especially after 2 weeks from the patient's point of view so we consider them more comfortable and convenient to use.

The Influence of the Tissue Adhesive Material as a Surgical Wound-Closure Technique Following Carpal Tunnel Decompression on Neurological and Functional Outcomes: A Single-Center Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is caused by compression of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel. The effect of tissue adhesives as a material for wound closure following CTS decompression has been insufficiently investigated. This study aimed to evaluate outcomes by comparing two modalities of wound closure following carpal surgery in patients randomly assigned to either tissue adhesives or sutures. Methodology This randomized, prospective study was conducted in April 2022 at the University Hospital of Split in Croatia. Patients aged 61.56 ± 12.03 years were randomized to either tissue adhesive Glubran Tiss 2®-based (n = 50) or suture-based (n = 50) wound-closure techniques. The following outcomes were assessed before surgery and six months postoperatively: hand strength, electroneurographic characteristics of the median nerve, and the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. Results Significant differences between glue-based and suture-based wound-closure techniques were found in the six-month postoperative hand grip strength (25.06 ± 6.69 vs. 21.41 ± 5.62 kg; p = 0.002), postoperative sensory amplitude (10.08 ± 5.50 vs. 7.54 ± 5.41 mV; p = 0.012), and postoperative sensory velocity (42.22 ± 11.04 vs. 35.23 ± 16.40 m/s; p = 0.008). In the glue-based group, significantly more patients achieved a postoperative sensory velocity greater than 45 m/s (47.9% vs. 22.0%; p= 0.006), postoperative distal sensory latency less than 3.5 ms (89.6% vs. 84.0%; p = 0.304), and postoperative motor latency of less than 4.2 ms (60.42% vs. 38.00%; p = 0.022). Conclusions This trial demonstrated that cyanoacrylate-based adhesion material for wound closure after open CTS decompression compared with sutures showed a significant six-month postoperative increment in hand grip strength and median nerve sensory conduction.

Trigger Finger Release: Are Sutures Requiring Removal Necessary?

Purpose

There is no consensus regarding optimal closure for trigger finger release (TFR) surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the number of postoperative visits and complications following TFR closure with nonabsorbable sutures versus those following TFR closure with absorbable sutures and skin glue. The hypothesis was that wound closure with absorbable sutures and glue will result in fewer postoperative visits, while having similar complication rates as that with nonabsorbable sutures.

Methods

A retrospective review identified all patients undergoing open TFR over a 3-year period performed by two hand surgery fellowship-trained hand surgeons who adhered to an identical surgical protocol except for incisional closure. Patients were divided into two groups: a control group with nonabsorbable 4-0 monofilament sutures requiring removal ("suture" group) and a study group with buried absorbable 4-0 monofilament sutures not requiring removal as well as skin glue ("glue" group). The data collected included age, sex, number of postoperative visits, wound complications, infections, antibiotic use, prescribed hand therapy, hospital admission, and reoperation.

Results

A total of 305 open TFR surgeries in 278 patients were included in the study, with 155 digits in the "suture" group and 150 in the "glue" group. Both groups were similar in age and sex. The "suture" group had significantly more total postoperative visits (185 vs 42, respectively, P < .001) and postoperative visits within the first 2 weeks (155 vs 10, respectively, P < .001) than the "glue" group. Additional postoperative visits beyond 2 weeks of surgery were similar between the two groups. Three (1.9%) patients in the "suture" group and two (1.3%) patients in the "glue" group developed a superficial surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery. Neither had deep infections requiring hospitalization or reoperation. Both groups required similar rates of postoperative hand therapy.

Conclusions

Absorbable sutures afford fewer postoperative visits while having a similar complication rate as nonabsorbable sutures requiring removal.

Type of study/level of evidence

Therapeutic IV.

Absorbable Sutures and Telemedicine for Patients Undergoing Trigger Finger Release

Background In the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, the development of care processes that reduce the need for in-person clinic visits while maintaining low complication rates is needed. The purpose of this study is to assess the outcomes of patients undergoing trigger finger release with various suture and follow-up visit types to assess the feasibility of shifting towards telemedicine-based follow-up protocols. Methods A retrospective review of 329 patients undergoing trigger finger release was performed. Patients were classified based on whether or not they received in-office follow-ups; whether they received absorbable or non-absorbable sutures; and whether they were treated using a telemedicine and absorbable suture protocol or other combination of sutures and follow-ups. Univariate statistics were performed to compare outcomes between groups. Results Patients who did not undergo in-office follow-up were more likely to experience residual stiffness or contracture (11.4% vs. 4.1%; p=0.033) but had no significant differences in 30-day reoperation, emergency department (ED) returns, wound complaints, and Quick DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) scores. When comparing chromic absorbable sutures to non-absorbable sutures, those with absorbable sutures were significantly more likely to have telemedicine visits but were also more likely to have wound complaints (17.9% vs. 8.5%; p=0.022). There was no significant difference in two- and six-week pain scores, 30-day reoperation, ED returns, residual symptoms, and Quick DASH scores. When comparing patients treated using the absorbable suture and telemedicine protocol with those receiving any other type of suture and postoperative follow-up, no significant differences in any postoperative clinical outcome measures were observed. Conclusion The results of this study demonstrate that the use of an absorbable suture and telemedicine protocol for patients undergoing trigger finger release yields similar outcomes as traditional methods of care. However, the use of absorbable sutures may result in decreased patient satisfaction with surgical wound healing.

Comparative study of surgical wound closure with nylon interrupted sutures and running subcuticular vicryl rapide suture after open release of the carpal tunnel

BACKGROUND

Surgical decompression of the carpal tunnel is considered the method of choice for its treatment with satisfactory results documented. Various methods and suturing materials have been used for closure of the surgical wound. In the present study, we compared interrupted mattress closure by means of nylon suture to running subcuticular closure with vicryl rapide suture. As far as we know, there is no similar study in the literature.

METHODS

A total of twenty patients were included in the study. Ten of them had their surgical wound closed with 3.0 nylon suture in an interrupted fashion and for the rest, a running subcuticular 3.0 vicryl rapide was used. All patients filled in a questionnaire about VAS perceived pain and a Quick DASH score sheet, preoperatively, at two and six weeks postoperatively. The cosmesis of the scar was assessed using the POSAS v2.0 system at two and six weeks after surgery and overall incidence of infections was noted as well.

RESULTS

There was no statistically important difference between the two groups of patients in regards to postoperative VAS pain levels at two and six weeks. Likewise, no statistically significant difference was evident as far as Quick DASH score, POSAS score and infections were concerned.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the use of running subcuticular vicryl rapide suture is an attractive alternative to interrupted nylon sutures for closure after open carpal tunnel decompression, lacking any significant drawbacks.

LAY SUMMARY

Surgery for carpal tunnel decompression is considered the method of choice for its treatment with documented satisfactory results. Various methods and suturing materials have been used for closure of the surgical wound. In the present study, we compared the use of a non-absorbable suture, placed intermittently to an absorbable continuous intradermal suture. A total of twenty patients were included in the study. Half of them had their wound closed with the absorbable suture and the other half with the non-absorbable suture, as described above. All patients were evaluated as far as pain, scar characteristics, functional outcomes of the operated hand and incidence of infection, at two and six weeks after surgery. After analysis of the data, no significant differences were found between the two groups, suggesting that both of these techniques are equally safe and efficacious.

Chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine skin antisepsis before upper limb surgery (CIPHUR): an international multicentre prospective cohort study

Introduction

Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common and costly complication of surgery. International guidelines recommend topical alcoholic chlorhexidine (CHX) before surgery. However, upper limb surgeons continue to use other antiseptics, citing a lack of applicable evidence, and concerns related to open wounds and tourniquets. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different topical antiseptics before upper limb surgery.

Methods

This international multicentre prospective cohort study recruited consecutive adults and children who underwent surgery distal to the shoulder joint. The intervention was use of CHX or povidone–iodine (PVI) antiseptics in either aqueous or alcoholic form. The primary outcome was SSI within 90 days. Mixed-effects time-to-event models were used to estimate the risk (hazard ratio (HR)) of SSI for patients undergoing elective and emergency upper limb surgery.

Results

A total of 2454 patients were included. The overall risk of SSI was 3.5 per cent. For elective upper limb surgery (1018 patients), alcoholic CHX appeared to be the most effective antiseptic, reducing the risk of SSI by 70 per cent (adjusted HR 0.30, 95 per cent c.i. 0.11 to 0.84), when compared with aqueous PVI. Concerning emergency upper limb surgery (1436 patients), aqueous PVI appeared to be the least effective antiseptic for preventing SSI; however, there was uncertainty in the estimates. No adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

The findings align with the global evidence base and international guidance, suggesting that alcoholic CHX should be used for skin antisepsis before clean (elective upper limb) surgery. For emergency (contaminated or dirty) upper limb surgery, the findings of this study were unclear and contradict the available evidence, concluding that further research is necessary.

Comparing the running subcuticular technique versus the Donati technique in open carpal tunnel release: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There are various skin suture techniques for wound closure following carpal tunnel release, and well-performed suturing will result in low post-operative scar tenderness. The aim of this study was to compare the Donati suture technique and running subcuticular technique in terms of surgical scar, post-operative pain and functional outcome in open carpal tunnel release.

METHODS

One-hundred forty-two patients were randomized using a computer-generated random number table into two groups receiving either running subcuticular suturing or Donati suturing after surgical intervention. We evaluated postoperative scarring using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), pain intensity using a verbal numerical rating scale, and functional outcomes using the Thai version of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire after surgical decompression for carpal tunnel syndrome at 2, 6, and 12 weeks. Continuous data are reported as mean ± SD while normally distributed or as median (interquartile range) when the distribution was skewed.

RESULTS

Lower scores at 2 weeks were given by the patients receiving the running subcuticular suture technique than the Donati suture technique (15.3 ± 4.8 vs 17 ± 4.6, respectively, P < 0.05) while the observer scores were not significantly different (15.6 ± 5.8 vs 16.7 ± 5.2, respectively, P = 0.15). At both 6 and 12 weeks post-surgical decompression both patient and observer scores were not significantly different. There were no differences between the groups in terms of VNRS pain scores and functional Boston Carpal Tunnel Scores at all time points.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized controlled trial found that although scarring assessments were slightly better in the earliest period following wound closure after surgical decompression in carpal tunnel syndrome using the running subcuticular suture, the final results at 3 months postoperative were not significantly different.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/ (TCTR20191204002).

Which Stitch? Replacing Anecdote with Evidence in Minor Hand Surgery

There is currently no consensus on the optimal suture type for palmar skin closure following open carpal tunnel release and trigger finger release. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients in the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs (PAVA) Health Care System who underwent these procedures over a 2-year period to compare 30-day wound outcomes following closure with poliglecaprone 25 (Monocryl), nylon, and chromic gut suture. Out of 312 PAVA cases (133 carpal tunnel release, 179 trigger finger release), incisions closed with Monocryl were significantly less likely to develop dehiscence (Monocryl 2.1%, nylon 10.5%, chromic 10.3%; P = 0.006) and infection (Monocryl 1.6%, nylon 7.4%, chromic 13.8%; P = 0.003), or lead to additional wound-related encounters (Monocryl 8.0%, nylon 16.8%, chromic 24.1%; P = 0.012). On multivariable logistic regression, suture type and diabetes were independent predictors of 30-day wound complications and extra encounters. At PAVA, compared with Monocryl, closures with nylon and chromic were significantly more likely to dehisce and/or become infected [nylon: odds ratio (OR), 5.0; 95% CI, 1.9–13.3 and chromic: OR, 9.3; 95% CI, 2.7–32.4; P = 0.002], and to be associated with an additional encounter (nylon: OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1–5.3 and chromic: OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.6–12.9; P = 0.007). This has led to using Monocryl as the standard closure for these cases at PAVA.