Comparing running vs interrupted sutures for skin closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Continuous sutures and interrupted sutures have been widely applied to skin closure after non-obstetric surgery or traumatic wounds. Usually, continuous sutures were divided into transdermal or subcuticular sutures according to whether the stitches were placed through or below the epidermal layer. Interrupted sutures, on the other hand, involved penetration of the loose connective tissue beneath the skin layers, with stitches placed through the external skin layer. Complications including infection, dehiscence, and poor cosmetic appearance were not rare after suturing. Whether a suture method is a suitable option for rapid wound healing and long-term cosmetic appearance remains controversial. To examine the potential benefits and harms of continuous skin sutures vs interrupted skin sutures in non-obstetric surgery or traumatic wounds. Searching websites such as PubMed, the Cochrane Central Library, Web of Science and Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched up to 5 January 2022 and were assessed and guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis rules as well as guidelines. All relevant randomised controlled studies comparing continuous sutures with interrupted sutures of skin closure were analysed. The suture techniques and material used in each trial were recorded. The transdermal and subcuticular continuous sutures were separately compared with interrupted sutures in the subgroup analysis of dehiscence and cosmetic appearance because the visual appearance of these two continuous suturing techniques was significantly different. Ten studies including 1181 participants were analysed. Subcuticular continuous sutures had comparatively higher visual analogue scale (VAS) scores among patients and doctors than interrupted sutures (OR = 0.27, 95% Confidence Intervals [CI] = 0. 07-0.47, P < .01). Similarly, priority was found regarding transdermal continuous sutures and interrupted sutures (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.21-0.60, P < .01). Five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated relevant data about dehiscence events. The incidence of continuous suture was significantly lesser than that of interrupted suture (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.07-0.37, P < .01). There was no significant difference between the infection events rates of two suture methods (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.40-1.21, P = .62, I2  = 0%). This systematic review indicated the superiority of both transdermal and subcutaneous continuous sutures over interrupted sutures in skin closure in terms of wound healing and cosmetic appearance.

• Authors: Wenhao Luo, Yinjie Tao, Yawen Wang, Zhaolian Ouyang, Jiuzuo Huang, Xiao Long
• Journal: International wound journal (Int Wound J) Vol. 20 Issue 1 Pg. 210-220 (Jan 2023) ISSN: 1742-481X [Electronic] England
• PMID: 35715955 (Publication Type: Meta-Analysis, Systematic Review, Journal Article, Review)
• Copyright: © 2022 The Authors. International Wound Journal published by Medicalhelplines.com Inc (3M) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Topics

• Humans
• Surgical Wound Infection (epidemiology)
• Suture Techniques
• Wound Healing
• Incidence
• Sutures