Bridges Tiffany N, Kasper Alexis A, Sherman Matthew B, Matzon Jonas L, Ilyas Asif M
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jefferson Health New Jersey, Stratford, NJ.
Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.
J Hand Surg Glob Online. 2023 Aug 4;5(6):740-743. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2023.06.010. eCollection 2023 Nov.
There is no consensus regarding optimal closure for trigger finger release (TFR) surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the number of postoperative visits and complications following TFR closure with nonabsorbable sutures versus those following TFR closure with absorbable sutures and skin glue. The hypothesis was that wound closure with absorbable sutures and glue will result in fewer postoperative visits, while having similar complication rates as that with nonabsorbable sutures.
A retrospective review identified all patients undergoing open TFR over a 3-year period performed by two hand surgery fellowship-trained hand surgeons who adhered to an identical surgical protocol except for incisional closure. Patients were divided into two groups: a control group with nonabsorbable 4-0 monofilament sutures requiring removal ("suture" group) and a study group with buried absorbable 4-0 monofilament sutures not requiring removal as well as skin glue ("glue" group). The data collected included age, sex, number of postoperative visits, wound complications, infections, antibiotic use, prescribed hand therapy, hospital admission, and reoperation.
A total of 305 open TFR surgeries in 278 patients were included in the study, with 155 digits in the "suture" group and 150 in the "glue" group. Both groups were similar in age and sex. The "suture" group had significantly more total postoperative visits (185 vs 42, respectively, < .001) and postoperative visits within the first 2 weeks (155 vs 10, respectively, < .001) than the "glue" group. Additional postoperative visits beyond 2 weeks of surgery were similar between the two groups. Three (1.9%) patients in the "suture" group and two (1.3%) patients in the "glue" group developed a superficial surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery. Neither had deep infections requiring hospitalization or reoperation. Both groups required similar rates of postoperative hand therapy.
Absorbable sutures afford fewer postoperative visits while having a similar complication rate as nonabsorbable sutures requiring removal.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.
扳机指松解术(TFR)手术的最佳闭合方式尚无共识。本研究的目的是比较采用不可吸收缝线闭合TFR与采用可吸收缝线及皮肤胶水闭合TFR后的术后复诊次数和并发症。假设是使用可吸收缝线和胶水进行伤口闭合将导致术后复诊次数减少,同时并发症发生率与使用不可吸收缝线相似。
一项回顾性研究确定了在3年期间由两位接受过手外科专科培训的手外科医生进行的所有开放性TFR患者,他们除了切口闭合外均遵循相同的手术方案。患者分为两组:对照组采用需要拆除的不可吸收4-0单丝缝线(“缝线”组),研究组采用无需拆除的埋入式可吸收4-0单丝缝线以及皮肤胶水(“胶水”组)。收集的数据包括年龄、性别、术后复诊次数、伤口并发症、感染、抗生素使用、规定的手部治疗、住院情况和再次手术。
本研究共纳入278例患者的305例开放性TFR手术,“缝线”组155指,“胶水”组150指。两组在年龄和性别方面相似。“缝线”组的术后总复诊次数(分别为185次和42次,P<0.001)和术后前2周内的复诊次数(分别为155次和10次,P<0.001)均显著多于“胶水”组。两组术后2周后的额外复诊次数相似。“缝线”组有3例(1.9%)患者和“胶水”组有2例(1.3%)患者在术后30天内发生浅表手术部位感染。均无需要住院或再次手术的深部感染。两组术后手部治疗的需求率相似。
可吸收缝线术后复诊次数较少,同时并发症发生率与需要拆除的不可吸收缝线相似。
研究类型/证据水平:治疗性IV级。