BACKGROUND: Cutaneous sutures should provide an aesthetically pleasing result. After placing subcutaneous sutures, enough absorbable suture often remains for the superficial closure. Mohs surgeons often use a nonabsorbable suture to close the superficial layer to obtain cosmetically elegant results, but using this additional suture is less cost effective than using the remaining absorbable suture. OBJECTIVES: To compare the cosmetic results of simple running sutures using an absorbable suture material (5-0 poliglecaprone-25) with those of a nonabsorbable suture (6-0 polypropylene) in primary closures of suitable facial Mohs defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients with 57 facial Mohs surgery defects appropriate for multilayer primary repair had the defects prospectively randomized into a side-by-side comparison. After closure of the deep layers with 5-0 poliglecaprone-25 sutures, half of the wound was closed with a 5-0 poliglecaprone-25 simple running suture, and the other half of the wound was closed with a 6-0 polypropylene simple running suture. The investigators blindly determined the cosmetically superior side of the closure at 1 week and 4 months after suture removal. RESULTS:Forty-four patients (48 total defects) completed the study. At the 4-month follow-up, 85% (41/48) did not show any difference between poliglecaprone-25 and polypropylene, 4% (2/48) had better outcomes with poliglecaprone-25, and 10% (5/48) had better outcomes with polypropylene. There was no statistically significant cosmetic difference between the two closure types. Wound complications such as infection, hematoma, and dehiscence did not occur in any of the patients. CONCLUSION: In primary closures of facial defects, using 5-0 poliglecaprone-25 or 6-0 polypropylene for the superficial closure did not affect the cosmetic result. Therefore, 5-0 poliglecaprone-25 provides a comparable and cost-effective alternative to nonabsorbable sutures for epidermal approximation in layered closures.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Cutaneous sutures should provide an aesthetically pleasing result. After placing subcutaneous sutures, enough absorbable suture often remains for the superficial closure. Mohs surgeons often use a nonabsorbable suture to close the superficial layer to obtain cosmetically elegant results, but using this additional suture is less cost effective than using the remaining absorbable suture. OBJECTIVES: To compare the cosmetic results of simple running sutures using an absorbable suture material (5-0 poliglecaprone-25) with those of a nonabsorbable suture (6-0 polypropylene) in primary closures of suitable facial Mohs defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients with 57 facial Mohs surgery defects appropriate for multilayer primary repair had the defects prospectively randomized into a side-by-side comparison. After closure of the deep layers with 5-0 poliglecaprone-25 sutures, half of the wound was closed with a 5-0 poliglecaprone-25 simple running suture, and the other half of the wound was closed with a 6-0 polypropylene simple running suture. The investigators blindly determined the cosmetically superior side of the closure at 1 week and 4 months after suture removal. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (48 total defects) completed the study. At the 4-month follow-up, 85% (41/48) did not show any difference between poliglecaprone-25 and polypropylene, 4% (2/48) had better outcomes with poliglecaprone-25, and 10% (5/48) had better outcomes with polypropylene. There was no statistically significant cosmetic difference between the two closure types. Wound complications such as infection, hematoma, and dehiscence did not occur in any of the patients. CONCLUSION: In primary closures of facial defects, using 5-0 poliglecaprone-25 or 6-0 polypropylene for the superficial closure did not affect the cosmetic result. Therefore, 5-0 poliglecaprone-25 provides a comparable and cost-effective alternative to nonabsorbable sutures for epidermal approximation in layered closures.
Authors: Alice Lee; Guy Stanley; Jonathan M Batchelor; Rachel A Abbott; Matthew D Gardiner; Aaron G H Wernham; David Veitch Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 11.113