OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether staples or subcuticular suture closure is associated with a higher risk of wound complications when used for transverse skin incisions after cesarean delivery. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Trial Registries). METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We searched electronic databases from 1966 to September 2010 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies comparing staples to subcuticular sutures after cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was occurrence of a wound complication (infection or separation). Secondary outcomes were components of the composite outcome, operating time, postoperative pain, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the χ test for heterogeneity, and I test. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using a fixed-effects model. We assessed publication bias using funnel plots and Egger test. RESULTS: Six studies met inclusion criteria: five RCTs and one prospective cohort study. Staple closure (n=803) was associated with a twofold higher risk of wound infection or separation compared with subcuticular suture closure (n=684) (13.4% versus 6.6%, pooled OR 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-2.98). The number needed to harm associated with staple closure was 16. The increased risk persisted when analysis was limited to the RCTs (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.47-4.02). There was no evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity among studies (χ=0.74, P=.327, I=13.7%) or publication bias (Egger test, t=-0.86, P=.439). Staple closure was associated with shorter duration of surgery, whereas the two techniques appeared equivalent overall with regard to pain, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Staple closure is faster to perform but associated with a higher risk of wound complications.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether staples or subcuticular suture closure is associated with a higher risk of wound complications when used for transverse skin incisions after cesarean delivery. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Trial Registries). METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We searched electronic databases from 1966 to September 2010 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies comparing staples to subcuticular sutures after cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was occurrence of a wound complication (infection or separation). Secondary outcomes were components of the composite outcome, operating time, postoperative pain, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the χ test for heterogeneity, and I test. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using a fixed-effects model. We assessed publication bias using funnel plots and Egger test. RESULTS: Six studies met inclusion criteria: five RCTs and one prospective cohort study. Staple closure (n=803) was associated with a twofold higher risk of wound infection or separation compared with subcuticular suture closure (n=684) (13.4% versus 6.6%, pooled OR 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-2.98). The number needed to harm associated with staple closure was 16. The increased risk persisted when analysis was limited to the RCTs (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.47-4.02). There was no evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity among studies (χ=0.74, P=.327, I=13.7%) or publication bias (Egger test, t=-0.86, P=.439). Staple closure was associated with shorter duration of surgery, whereas the two techniques appeared equivalent overall with regard to pain, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Staple closure is faster to perform but associated with a higher risk of wound complications.
Authors: Lindsay M Kuroki; Mary M Mullen; L Stewart Massad; Ningying Wu; Jingxia Liu; David G Mutch; Matthew A Powell; Andrea R Hagemann; Premal H Thaker; Carolyn K McCourt; Akiva P Novetsky Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Akiva P Novetsky; Israel Zighelboim; Saketh R Guntupalli; Yevgeniya J M Ioffe; Nora T Kizer; Andrea R Hagemann; Matthew A Powell; Premal H Thaker; David G Mutch; L Stewart Massad Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Lorene A Temming; Nandini Raghuraman; Ebony B Carter; Molly J Stout; Roxane M Rampersad; George A Macones; Alison G Cahill; Methodius G Tuuli Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Heidi Dutton; Sarah Jean Borengasser; Laura Marie Gaudet; Linda A Barbour; Erin Joanne Keely Journal: Med Clin North Am Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 5.456
Authors: Dana Figueroa; Victoria Chapman Jauk; Jeff M Szychowski; Rachel Garner; Joseph R Biggio; William W Andrews; John Hauth; Alan T N Tita Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.661