SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003
Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Cesarean Delivery Skin Closure: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Standard Staples Versus Absorbable Staples
Surgical Staples vs. Absorbable Subcuticular Suture for Wound Closure of Cesarean Deliveries
Cesarean Randomized Control Trial Of Sutures vs. Staples (CROSS)
Subcuticular Suture Versus Staples for Closure of the Skin After Caesarean Section: A Prospective Randomized Single-blinded Case-Control Study With the Case as it's Own Control.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Health Impact of Surgical Techniques and Assistive Methods Used in Cesarean Deliveries: A Systemic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Interventions for supporting pregnant women's decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- A systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis: staples versus sutures for surgical procedures.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Sutures versus staples for skin closure in orthopaedic surgery: meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2010Pooled it
- Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
- Techniques for caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
- Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2004Pooled it
- Surgical staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2013Trial
- A randomized, controlled study comparing the cosmetic outcome of a new wound closure device with Prolene suture closing caesarean wounds.International wound journal · 2011Trial
- Cosmetic outcomes of cesarean section scar; subcuticular suture versus intradermal buried suture.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2018Article
- Dermatologic conditions in patients of color who are pregnant.International journal of women's dermatology · 2017Review
- Comparison of Subcuticular Suture Materials in Cesarean Skin Closure.Surgery research and practice · 2015Article
- A Randomized Study Comparing Skin Staples with Subcuticular Sutures for Wound Closure at Caesarean Section in Black-Skinned Women.International scholarly research notices · 2014Article
- Concealed cosmetic closure in total knee replacement surgery - A prospective audit assessing appearance and patient satisfaction.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and traumaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaesarean section is a common operation with no agreed standard on operative techniques and materials to use. The skin layer can be repaired by sub cuticular stitch immediately below the skin layer, an interrupted stitch or with skin staples. A great variety of materials and techniques are used for skin closure after caesarean section and there is a need to identify which provide the best outcomes for women.
objectivesTo compare the effects of skin closure techniques and materials on maternal outcomes and time taken to perform a caesarean section. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (August 2002). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised comparisons of skin closure techniques in caesarean section. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three papers were identified from the search. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. On further inspection two were not considered to be randomised controlled trials. MAIN
resultsOnly one small randomised controlled trial, involving 66 women, was included in the review. Frishman et al compared staples with absorbable sub-cuticular suture for closure following caesarean section. While operating time was significantly shorter when using staples, the use of absorbable sub cuticular suture resulted in less postoperative pain and yielded a better cosmetic result at the post-operative visit. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsThere is no conclusive evidence about how the skin should be closed after caesarean section. Questions regarding the best closure technique and material and the outcomes associated with each remain unanswered. The appearance and strength of the scar following caesarean section is important to women and the choice of technique and materials should be made by women in consultation with their obstetrician based on the limited information currently available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.