BACKGROUND: Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin, allowing the surgeon to gain access to the surgical site. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure; this review focuses on these closed wounds. There are many ways to close the surgical incision, for example, using sutures (stitches), staples, tissue adhesives or tapes. Skin sutures can be continuous or interrupted. In general, continuous sutures are usually subcuticular and can be absorbable or non-absorbable, while interrupted sutures are usually non-absorbable and involve the full thickness of the skin - although some surgeons do use absorbable interrupted sutures. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of continuous compared with interrupted skin closure techniques in participants undergoing non-obstetric surgery. SEARCH METHODS: In August 2013 we searched the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared skin closure using continuous sutures with skin closure using interrupted sutures, irrespective of whether there were differences in the nature of the suture materials used in the two groups. We included all relevant RCTs in the analysis, irrespective of language of publication, publication status, publication year or sample size. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified the trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for comparing binary outcomes between the groups, and calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for comparing continuous outcomes. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model. We performed intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with a total of 827 participants. Outcomes were available for 730 participants (384 participants randomised to continuous sutures and 346 participants to interrupted sutures). All the trials were of unclear or high risk of bias. The participants underwent abdominal or groin operations. The only outcomes reported in the trials were superficial surgical site infection, superficial wound dehiscence (breakdown) and length of hospital stay. Other important outcomes such as quality of life, long-term patient outcomes and use of healthcare resources were not reported in these trials.Overall, 6.5% (39/602 participants, four trials) developed superficial surgical site infections. There was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of participants who developed superficial surgical site infections (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.33). A total of 23 participants (23/625 (3.7%), four trials) developed superficial wound dehiscence. Twenty-two of the 23 participants belonged to the interrupted suture group.The proportion of participants who developed superficial wound dehiscence was statistically significantly lower in the continuous suture group compared to the interrupted suture group (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.35). Most of these wound dehiscences were reported in two recent trials in which the continuous skin suture groups received absorbable subcuticular sutures while the interrupted skin suture groups received non-absorbable transcutaneous sutures. The non-absorbable sutures were removed seven to nine days after surgery in the interrupted sutures groups whilst sutures in the comparator groups were not removed, being absorbable. The continuous suture technique with absorbable suture does not require suture removal and provides support for the wound for a longer period of time. This may have contributed to the difference between the two groups in the proportion of participants who developed superficial wound dehiscence. There was no significant difference in the length of the hospital stay between the two groups (MD -1.40 days; 95% CI -7.14 to 4.34). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Superficial wound dehiscence may be reduced by using continuous subcuticular sutures. However, there is uncertainty about this because of the quality of the evidence. Besides, the nature of the suture material used may have led to this observation, as the continuous suturing technique used suture material that did not need to be removed, whereas the comparator used interrupted (non-absorbable) sutures that did need to be removed. Differences in the methods of skin closure have the potential to affect patient outcomes and use of healthcare resources. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias are necessary to determine which type of suturing is better.
BACKGROUND: Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin, allowing the surgeon to gain access to the surgical site. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure; this review focuses on these closed wounds. There are many ways to close the surgical incision, for example, using sutures (stitches), staples, tissue adhesives or tapes. Skin sutures can be continuous or interrupted. In general, continuous sutures are usually subcuticular and can be absorbable or non-absorbable, while interrupted sutures are usually non-absorbable and involve the full thickness of the skin - although some surgeons do use absorbable interrupted sutures. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of continuous compared with interrupted skin closure techniques in participants undergoing non-obstetric surgery. SEARCH METHODS: In August 2013 we searched the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared skin closure using continuous sutures with skin closure using interrupted sutures, irrespective of whether there were differences in the nature of the suture materials used in the two groups. We included all relevant RCTs in the analysis, irrespective of language of publication, publication status, publication year or sample size. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified the trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for comparing binary outcomes between the groups, and calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for comparing continuous outcomes. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model. We performed intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with a total of 827 participants. Outcomes were available for 730 participants (384 participants randomised to continuous sutures and 346 participants to interrupted sutures). All the trials were of unclear or high risk of bias. The participants underwent abdominal or groin operations. The only outcomes reported in the trials were superficial surgical site infection, superficial wound dehiscence (breakdown) and length of hospital stay. Other important outcomes such as quality of life, long-term patient outcomes and use of healthcare resources were not reported in these trials.Overall, 6.5% (39/602 participants, four trials) developed superficial surgical site infections. There was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of participants who developed superficial surgical site infections (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.33). A total of 23 participants (23/625 (3.7%), four trials) developed superficial wound dehiscence. Twenty-two of the 23 participants belonged to the interrupted suture group.The proportion of participants who developed superficial wound dehiscence was statistically significantly lower in the continuous suture group compared to the interrupted suture group (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.35). Most of these wound dehiscences were reported in two recent trials in which the continuous skin suture groups received absorbable subcuticular sutures while the interrupted skin suture groups received non-absorbable transcutaneous sutures. The non-absorbable sutures were removed seven to nine days after surgery in the interrupted sutures groups whilst sutures in the comparator groups were not removed, being absorbable. The continuous suture technique with absorbable suture does not require suture removal and provides support for the wound for a longer period of time. This may have contributed to the difference between the two groups in the proportion of participants who developed superficial wound dehiscence. There was no significant difference in the length of the hospital stay between the two groups (MD -1.40 days; 95% CI -7.14 to 4.34). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Superficial wound dehiscence may be reduced by using continuous subcuticular sutures. However, there is uncertainty about this because of the quality of the evidence. Besides, the nature of the suture material used may have led to this observation, as the continuous suturing technique used suture material that did not need to be removed, whereas the comparator used interrupted (non-absorbable) sutures that did need to be removed. Differences in the methods of skin closure have the potential to affect patient outcomes and use of healthcare resources. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias are necessary to determine which type of suturing is better.
Authors: Zhenmi Liu; Jo C Dumville; Gill Norman; Maggie J Westby; Jane Blazeby; Emma McFarlane; Nicky J Welton; Louise O'Connor; Julie Cawthorne; Ryan P George; Emma J Crosbie; Amber D Rithalia; Hung-Yuan Cheng Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-02-06