Absorbable vs non absorbable sutures for wound closure. Systematic review of systematic reviews

Q1 Medicine

Wound Medicine Pub Date : 2018-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.wndm.2018.09.004

Sharaf Sheik-Ali , Wilfried Guets

{"title":"Absorbable vs non absorbable sutures for wound closure. Systematic review of systematic reviews","authors":"Sharaf Sheik-Ali , Wilfried Guets","doi":"10.1016/j.wndm.2018.09.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To provide an overview of evidence on Absorbable and non-absorbable sutures (AS & NAS) for the closure of surgical incisions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>Medline, Embase and Cochrane library were searched for systematic reviews<span> including randomised control trials (RCTs) on AS and NAS. Those that matched the inclusion criterion were analysed for data on surgical site infections, </span></span>post operative complications<span> and risk of wound dehiscence.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The systematic review of reviews yielded data on 5781 patients in 25 RCTs. There was no significant difference (p < 0.05) noted in surgical site infections, post operative complications or risk of wound dehiscence post use of NAS or AS sutures.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study demonstrates that absorbable sutures are not superior to non absorbable sutures in the three areas examined: surgical site infections, post operative complications and risk of wound dehiscence. However, there was significant heterogeneity between included RCTs in the systematic reviews. Further RCTs are needed to evaluate the differences between absorbable and non absorbable sutures that are reflected in size of wounds and location.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38278,"journal":{"name":"Wound Medicine","volume":"23 ","pages":"Pages 35-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.wndm.2018.09.004","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wound Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213909518300478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 11

Abstract

Objective

To provide an overview of evidence on Absorbable and non-absorbable sutures (AS & NAS) for the closure of surgical incisions.

Methods

Medline, Embase and Cochrane library were searched for systematic reviews including randomised control trials (RCTs) on AS and NAS. Those that matched the inclusion criterion were analysed for data on surgical site infections, post operative complications and risk of wound dehiscence.

Results

The systematic review of reviews yielded data on 5781 patients in 25 RCTs. There was no significant difference (p < 0.05) noted in surgical site infections, post operative complications or risk of wound dehiscence post use of NAS or AS sutures.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that absorbable sutures are not superior to non absorbable sutures in the three areas examined: surgical site infections, post operative complications and risk of wound dehiscence. However, there was significant heterogeneity between included RCTs in the systematic reviews. Further RCTs are needed to evaluate the differences between absorbable and non absorbable sutures that are reflected in size of wounds and location.

查看原文本刊更多论文

可吸收与不可吸收缝合线用于伤口闭合。系统评审的系统评审

目的综述可吸收缝线和不可吸收缝线(AS &NAS)用于闭合手术切口。方法检索medline、Embase和Cochrane文库，纳入AS和NAS的随机对照试验(rct)。对符合纳入标准的患者进行手术部位感染、术后并发症和伤口裂开风险的数据分析。结果系统综述获得了25项随机对照试验中5781例患者的数据。NAS和AS缝线在手术部位感染、术后并发症和创面裂开风险方面差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。结论可吸收缝线在手术部位感染、术后并发症和创面裂开风险三个方面均不优于不可吸收缝线。然而，在系统评价中纳入的随机对照试验之间存在显著的异质性。需要进一步的随机对照试验来评估可吸收缝合线和不可吸收缝合线在伤口大小和位置上的差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Wound Medicine Medicine-Surgery

自引率

0.00%

发文量