Comparative evaluation of efficacy of skin staples and conventional sutures in closure of extraoral surgical wounds in neck region: A double-blind clinical study.

National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery Pub Date : 2022-09-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-10 DOI:10.4103/njms.njms_305_21
Narayan Dutt Pandey, Ashok Kumar Singh, Amit Kumar Choudhary, Gitanjali Jina, Amar Thakare, Narendra B Supe
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of efficacy of skin staples and conventional sutures in closure of extraoral surgical wounds in neck region: A double-blind clinical study.","authors":"Narayan Dutt Pandey,&nbsp;Ashok Kumar Singh,&nbsp;Amit Kumar Choudhary,&nbsp;Gitanjali Jina,&nbsp;Amar Thakare,&nbsp;Narendra B Supe","doi":"10.4103/njms.njms_305_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The development of the skin stapling technique for surgical wound closure is less time-consuming than the conventional sutures.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of skin staples and 4-0 prolene conventional suture in closure of extraoral surgical wounds in neck region in elective maxillofacial surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study was conducted on a total of 60 patients, who were equally divided into three groups. In Group 1, wound closure was done using skin staples; in Group 2, wound closure was done using 4-0 prolene suture, and in Group 3, wound closure was done using both skin staples and 4-0 prolene suture. These groups were compared in terms of rate of wound closure; early postoperative pain; pain on the removal of staple and suture; rate of removal of staple and suture; scar evaluation by the clinician, patient, and two-blind observers on 15<sup>th</sup> day, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The rate of closure was significantly faster in staple group than in suture group. There was no significant difference in the postoperative pain, pain on removal and rate of removal between the two methods of closure. However, within the groups, more postoperative pain was observed in wound with incision length of >5 cm. Initially, on 10<sup>th</sup> postoperative day, the appearance of scar was significantly better in suture group but after 6 months, scar was better in staple group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The staple method of wound closure appears to be better than conventional suture in terms of rate of closure and scar appearance.</p>","PeriodicalId":18827,"journal":{"name":"National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery","volume":"13 3","pages":"449-456"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/dc/ec/NJMS-13-449.PMC9851369.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/njms.njms_305_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The development of the skin stapling technique for surgical wound closure is less time-consuming than the conventional sutures.

Aim: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of skin staples and 4-0 prolene conventional suture in closure of extraoral surgical wounds in neck region in elective maxillofacial surgery.

Materials and methods: The study was conducted on a total of 60 patients, who were equally divided into three groups. In Group 1, wound closure was done using skin staples; in Group 2, wound closure was done using 4-0 prolene suture, and in Group 3, wound closure was done using both skin staples and 4-0 prolene suture. These groups were compared in terms of rate of wound closure; early postoperative pain; pain on the removal of staple and suture; rate of removal of staple and suture; scar evaluation by the clinician, patient, and two-blind observers on 15th day, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months.

Results: The rate of closure was significantly faster in staple group than in suture group. There was no significant difference in the postoperative pain, pain on removal and rate of removal between the two methods of closure. However, within the groups, more postoperative pain was observed in wound with incision length of >5 cm. Initially, on 10th postoperative day, the appearance of scar was significantly better in suture group but after 6 months, scar was better in staple group.

Conclusion: The staple method of wound closure appears to be better than conventional suture in terms of rate of closure and scar appearance.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
皮肤缝合钉和传统缝合线在颈部口腔外手术伤口愈合中的疗效比较评价:一项双盲临床研究。
背景:用于外科伤口闭合的皮肤缝合技术的发展比传统缝合耗时更少。目的:本研究旨在评价皮肤钉和4-0 prolene常规缝合线在选择性颌面部手术中对颈部口腔外手术伤口的闭合效果。材料和方法:本研究共对60名患者进行,他们被平均分为三组。在第1组中,使用皮肤钉进行伤口闭合;在第2组中,使用4-0 prolene缝合线进行伤口闭合,在第3组中,同时使用皮肤钉和4-0 prolene缝合线进行创伤闭合。这些组在伤口闭合率方面进行了比较;术后早期疼痛;移除缝合钉和缝线时的疼痛;缝合钉和缝线的去除率;在第15天、第1个月、第3个月和第6个月由临床医生、患者和两名盲人观察者进行瘢痕评估。结果:吻合钉组的闭合速度明显快于缝线组。两种闭合方法在术后疼痛、取出疼痛和取出率方面没有显著差异。然而,在组内,切口长度>5cm的伤口观察到更多的术后疼痛。最初,在术后第10天,缝合组的疤痕外观明显改善,但6个月后,缝合组疤痕更好。结论:缝合方法在缝合率和瘢痕形成方面均优于传统缝合方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Soft skills for personal development of the surgeon for improved outcomes for patient and surgeon. Oral rhabdomyosarcoma of mandibular region: A case report. Evaluation of efficacy of simvastatin in bone regeneration following local application in third molar extraction socket: A randomized control trial. Comparative evaluation of implant stability and crestal bone level between tapered and cylindrical implants in the posterior regions of the mandible: A prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial. Comparative and clinical evaluation between piezoelectric and conventional rotary techniques for mandibular impacted third molar extraction.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1