M N Zaki1, M Truong1, M Pyra2, M A Kominiarek3, T Irwin1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare wound complications between staples versus subcuticular suture for skin closure in obese women (body mass index (BMI)⩾30 kg m(-2)) after cesarean delivery (CD). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare wound complications between staples and subcuticular suture closure in women, with a prepregnancy BMI⩾30 kg m(-2) after CD between 2006 and 2011 at an inner-city teaching hospital. Wound complication was defined as a composite of wound disruption (hematoma or seroma) or infection diagnosed up to 6 weeks postpartum. Variables collected include age, parity, prior CDs, prior abdominal surgeries, incision type, chorioamnionitis, maternal comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes) and gestational age. RESULTS: Of the 1147 women included in the study, women with staple closure were older and had higher BMIs (40.6±9.3 versus 36.1±5.4) and were more likely to be multiparous, have a prior CD, diabetes and hypertension compared with women with subcuticular suture. The overall occurrence of wound complications was 15.5% (178/1147). Women with staples had higher wound complications compared with sutures (22.0% versus 9.7%) with a 2.27 unadjusted relative risk (RR) (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.7 to 3.0) and 1.78 adjusted RR (95% CI, 1.27 to 2.49) after controlling for confounders in the final analysis, including vertical skin incisions. CONCLUSIONS: In obese women, skin closure with staples at the time of CD is associated with a higher rate of wound complications compared with subcuticular suture. Skin closure with subcuticular suture over staples should be considered in obese women undergoing a CD regardless of skin incision type.
OBJECTIVE: To compare wound complications between staples versus subcuticular suture for skin closure in obesewomen (body mass index (BMI)⩾30 kg m(-2)) after cesarean delivery (CD). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare wound complications between staples and subcuticular suture closure in women, with a prepregnancy BMI⩾30 kg m(-2) after CD between 2006 and 2011 at an inner-city teaching hospital. Wound complication was defined as a composite of wound disruption (hematoma or seroma) or infection diagnosed up to 6 weeks postpartum. Variables collected include age, parity, prior CDs, prior abdominal surgeries, incision type, chorioamnionitis, maternal comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes) and gestational age. RESULTS: Of the 1147 women included in the study, women with staple closure were older and had higher BMIs (40.6±9.3 versus 36.1±5.4) and were more likely to be multiparous, have a prior CD, diabetes and hypertension compared with women with subcuticular suture. The overall occurrence of wound complications was 15.5% (178/1147). Women with staples had higher wound complications compared with sutures (22.0% versus 9.7%) with a 2.27 unadjusted relative risk (RR) (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.7 to 3.0) and 1.78 adjusted RR (95% CI, 1.27 to 2.49) after controlling for confounders in the final analysis, including vertical skin incisions. CONCLUSIONS: In obesewomen, skin closure with staples at the time of CD is associated with a higher rate of wound complications compared with subcuticular suture. Skin closure with subcuticular suture over staples should be considered in obesewomen undergoing a CD regardless of skin incision type.
Authors: Methodius G Tuuli; Roxane M Rampersad; Jeanine F Carbone; David Stamilio; George A Macones; Anthony O Odibo Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Mark C Alanis; Margaret S Villers; Tameeka L Law; Elizabeth M Steadman; Christopher J Robinson Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-08-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Suzanne L Basha; Meredith L Rochon; Joanne N Quiñones; Kara M Coassolo; Orion A Rust; John C Smulian Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: A Dhanya Mackeen; Adeeb Khalifeh; Jonah Fleisher; Alison Vogell; Christina Han; Jocelyn Sendecki; Christian Pettker; Benjamin E Leiby; Jason K Baxter; Anna Sfakianaki; Vincenzo Berghella Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Shayna N Conner; Juliana C Verticchio; Methodius G Tuuli; Anthony O Odibo; George A Macones; Alison G Cahill Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 1.862
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