Hand (N Y). 2023 Nov 24:15589447231210332. doi: 10.1177/15589447231210332. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Both absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures are used to correct palmar incisions or lacerations. Nonabsorbable sutures have been used without complications but require removal at a follow-up appointment. Alternatively, the use of absorbable sutures has increased in popularity as postoperative suture removal is not required but is associated with local immunological and inflammatory responses. In this study, we compared the scar quality and outcomes of nonabsorbable and absorbable sutures in A1 pulley release.
METHODS: Patients who underwent A1 pulley release were randomized to 1 of 2 suture materials. The Patient Scar Assessment Scale, Observer Scar Assessment Scale, Visual Analogue Scale, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were collected at 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively. Among the 41 patients included in the study, 23 were randomized to the nonabsorbable suture group, and 18 to the absorbable suture group.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two suture groups in the aforementioned assessments. Complication rates were higher in the nonabsorbable suture group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Notably, 1 case in the absorbable suture group had uncontrolled postoperative bleeding and required reoperation.
CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference between the two materials in terms of the Patient or Observer Scar Assessment Scales, overall complication rates, symptom scores, or pain scores. Therefore, the choice using absorbable or nonabsorbable can be guided by other factors such as physician or patient preference, availability, and cost.
PMID:37997760 | DOI:10.1177/15589447231210332
