Suppr超能文献

5-0 聚丙烯缝线与 5-0 快吸收普通肠线用于皮肤伤口缝合:一项随机评估者盲法试验。

5-0 Polypropylene versus 5-0 fast absorbing plain gut for cutaneous wound closure: a randomized evaluator blind trial.

机构信息

Department of Dermatology, University of California Davis Medical Center, 3301 C St., Suite 1400, Sacramento, CA, 95816, USA.

Laser and Skin Surgery Center of Northern California, 3835 J St, Sacramento, CA, 95816, USA.

出版信息

Arch Dermatol Res. 2020 Apr;312(3):179-185. doi: 10.1007/s00403-019-02009-5. Epub 2019 Nov 13.

Abstract

Mixed opinions exist regarding cosmetic outcomes of 5-0 fast absorbing plain (FG) gut relative to nonabsorbable suture material, such as 5-0 polypropylene (PP). High quality randomized trials comparing these two suture materials are lacking. To determine whether the use of PP during layered repair of linear cutaneous surgery wounds improves scar cosmesis compared to wound closure with FG. A randomized, split wound, comparative effectiveness trial was undertaken. Patients were evaluated 3 months after the intervention by two blinded physicians using the validated patient observer scar assessment scale (POSAS). Patient assessments were also captured using the same instrument as well as scar width and complications. The mean sum of the six components of the POSAS was 10.26 vs 12.74 for PP and FG, respectively, significantly (p < 0.001) in favor of PP. Mean observer overall opinion similarly showed better outcomes for PP than for FG [1.88 vs 2.52, respectively (p < 0.006)]. The mean sum of the patient assessed components of the POSAS for PP and FG was 12.3 vs 14.34, respectively (p = 0.11). Patient overall opinion significantly favored PP (2.41 vs 3.14, p = 0.043). PP resulted in small but statistically significant better cosmetic outcomes than FG. Pain experienced during suture removal was minimal for most patients.

摘要

对于 5-0 快吸收普通(FG)肠线与不可吸收缝线材料(如 5-0 聚丙烯(PP))的美容效果,存在不同意见。缺乏比较这两种缝线材料的高质量随机试验。为了确定在分层修复线性皮肤手术伤口时使用 PP 是否比 FG 更能改善疤痕美容效果。进行了一项随机、分拆伤口、比较有效性试验。干预 3 个月后,由两名盲法医生使用经过验证的患者观察疤痕评估量表(POSAS)对患者进行评估。还使用相同的工具以及疤痕宽度和并发症来评估患者的评估。POSAS 的六个组成部分的平均总和分别为 10.26 与 PP 和 FG,分别为 12.74,PP 明显(p < 0.001)。观察者总体意见也表明 PP 的结果优于 FG [1.88 与 2.52,分别(p < 0.006)]。PP 和 FG 的 POSAS 患者评估组成部分的平均总和分别为 12.3 和 14.34(p = 0.11)。患者总体意见明显偏向 PP(2.41 与 3.14,p = 0.043)。PP 导致的美容效果略好,但具有统计学意义。大多数患者在拆线时几乎没有感到疼痛。

相似文献

1
5-0 Polypropylene versus 5-0 fast absorbing plain gut for cutaneous wound closure: a randomized evaluator blind trial.
Arch Dermatol Res. 2020 Apr;312(3):179-185. doi: 10.1007/s00403-019-02009-5. Epub 2019 Nov 13.
3
Dermal suture only versus layered closure: A randomized, split wound comparative effectiveness trial.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Dec;81(6):1346-1352. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.08.040. Epub 2019 Aug 21.
5
Fast absorbing gut sutures in dermatologic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Arch Dermatol Res. 2024 Jun 8;316(7):351. doi: 10.1007/s00403-024-02973-7.
8
Does wound eversion improve cosmetic outcome?: Results of a randomized, split-scar, comparative trial.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Apr;72(4):668-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.11.032. Epub 2015 Jan 23.
9
Set-back versus buried vertical mattress suturing: results of a randomized blinded trial.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Apr;72(4):674-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.07.018. Epub 2014 Aug 14.

引用本文的文献

1
2
Fast absorbing gut sutures in dermatologic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Arch Dermatol Res. 2024 Jun 8;316(7):351. doi: 10.1007/s00403-024-02973-7.

本文引用的文献

1
The Surgical Suture.
Aesthet Surg J. 2019 Mar 14;39(Suppl_2):S67-S72. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjz036.
6
Absorbable Versus Nonabsorbable Sutures for Skin Closure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Ann Plast Surg. 2016 May;76(5):598-606. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000418.
7
Does wound eversion improve cosmetic outcome?: Results of a randomized, split-scar, comparative trial.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Apr;72(4):668-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.11.032. Epub 2015 Jan 23.
8
Systematic review of absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions.
World J Gastrointest Surg. 2014 Dec 27;6(12):241-7. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v6.i12.241.
9
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare.
J Family Med Prim Care. 2013 Jan;2(1):9-14. doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.109934.
10
A randomised controlled trial of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after open carpal tunnel release.
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2012 May;37(4):350-3. doi: 10.1177/1753193411422334. Epub 2011 Oct 10.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验