Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23152219›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section.

A Dhanya Mackeen, Vincenzo Berghella, Mie-Louise Larsen

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01977612 (Randomized Controlled Phase IIB Trial Evaluating Wound Complication Rate After Skin Closure With Staples Versus Subcuticular Suture in Patients With BMI >=30), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01977612 phase2completednot on this mapstarted 2013, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Controlled Phase IIB Trial Evaluating Wound Complication Rate After Skin Closure With Staples Versus Subcuticular Suture in Patients With BMI >=30

TypeinterventionalSponsorWashington University School of MedicineRan2013 to 2016Enrolled173ConditionsWound Infection, Wound ComplicationArms4-0 monofilament suture, Stainless steel staples
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Subcuticular sutures for skin closure in non-obstetric surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Continuous versus interrupted skin sutures for non-obstetric surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A Dhanya MackeenDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas JeffersonUniversity, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Vincenzo Berghella
Mie-Louise Larsen
Thomas Jefferson University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaesarean section is a common operation with no agreed upon standard regarding certain operative techniques or materials to use. With regard to skin closure, the skin incision can be re-approximated by a subcuticular suture immediately below the skin layer, by an interrupted suture, or by 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 and operative outcomes after caesarean section. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (10 January 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized trials comparing different skin closure materials in caesareans were selected. Two review authors independently abstracted the data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 19 trials and included 11, but only eight trials contributed data. Three trials were not randomized controlled trials; two were ongoing; one study was terminated and the results were not available for review; one is awaiting classification; and one did not compare skin closure materials, but rather suture to suture and drain placement. MAIN

resultsThe two methods of skin closure for caesarean that have been most often compared are non-absorbable staples and absorbable subcutaneous sutures. Compared with absorbable subcutaneous sutures, non-absorbable staples are associated with similar incidences of wound infection. Other important secondary outcomes, such as wound complications, were also similar between the groups in women with Pfannenstiel incisions. However, it is important to note, that for both of these outcomes (wound infection and wound complication), staples may have a differential effect depending on the type of skin incision, i.e., Pfannenstiel or vertical. Compared with absorbable subcutaneous sutures, non-absorbable staples are associated with an increased risk of skin separation, and therefore, reclosure. However, skin separation was variably defined across trials, and most staples were removed before four days postpartum. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is currently no conclusive evidence about how the skin should be closed after caesarean section. Staples are associated with similar outcomes in terms of wound infection, pain and cosmesis compared with sutures, and these two are the most commonly studied methods for skin closure after caesarean section. If staples are removed on day three, there is an increased incidence of skin separation and the need for reclosure compared with absorbable sutures.

Indexed as

Abdominal Wound Closure TechniquesDermatologic Surgical ProceduresSuturesSuture TechniquesCesarean SectionFemaleHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Wound DehiscenceSurgical Wound Infection

Identifiers

PMID23152219
PMCPMC6988900
OpenAlexW1621523727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.