Department of Orthopaedics, Hospital Universitário Ciências Médicas-Faculdade de Ciências Médicas de Minas Gerais, Rua dos Aimorés, 2896- Santo Agostinho, MG 30140-073, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Aug 30;22(1):747. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04627-5.
There are several studies comparing techniques and different materials, yet the results are not unanimous. We compared three methods of skin closure in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), including suture with single stitches and unabsorbable MonoNylon®, as well as continuous subcuticular suture with Monocryl® or barbed Stratafix® absorbable suture.
A prospective, randomized study was conducted with 63 patients undergoing TKA between March 2016 and December 2016. Patients were divided into three groups: traditional suture MonoNylon® (n 22), subcuticular continuous suture with Monocryl® (n 20), and another barbed with Stratafix® (n 21). The closure time, length of wire used, pain intensity, possible complications, and cosmeses were evaluated.
Subcuticular continuous suture using Monocryl® was superior to traditional suture using MonoNylon® as less thread was used (p 0.01) and a better cosmetic effect was achieved (p < 0.01), which was equal to Stratafix® aspects analyzed (p > 0.05). Complications were observed mostly in patients who used Stratafix®.
This study concluded that the subcuticular suture with absorbable monofilament Monocryl® proved to be advantageous compared to the others because it presented results equal to the barbed Stratafix®, however with fewer complications. Furthermore, Monocryl® was shown to be equal or superior to traditional MonoNylon® suture regarding in relation pain intensity, aesthetic result, and effective cost.
WHO ICTRP identifier RBR78dh5d. Retrospectively registered: 07/29/2020.
有几项比较技术和不同材料的研究,但结果并不一致。我们比较了三种全膝关节置换术(TKA)的皮肤缝合方法,包括单缝线缝合和不可吸收的 MonoNylon®,以及连续皮下缝合的 Monocryl®或带倒刺的 Stratafix®可吸收缝线。
这是一项前瞻性、随机研究,纳入了 2016 年 3 月至 2016 年 12 月期间接受 TKA 的 63 例患者。患者分为三组:传统缝线 MonoNylon®(n=22)、Monocryl®连续皮下缝合(n=20)和另一种带倒刺的 Stratafix®(n=21)。评估了缝合时间、缝线长度、疼痛强度、可能的并发症和美容效果。
与传统的 MonoNylon®缝线相比,Monocryl®连续皮下缝合使用的缝线更少(p<0.01),美容效果更好(p<0.01),与 Stratafix®相当(p>0.05)。Stratafix®组患者观察到的并发症较多。
这项研究表明,与其他方法相比,可吸收单丝 Monocryl®的皮下缝合具有优势,因为它与带倒刺的 Stratafix®结果相当,但并发症较少。此外,Monocryl®在疼痛强度、美容效果和有效成本方面与传统的 MonoNylon®缝线相当或更优。
WHO ICTRP 标识符 RBR78dh5d。回顾性注册:2020 年 7 月 29 日。