ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2014
Systematic review of absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating the effect of video-based training on adherence of surgical positioning standards: a randomized controlled trial.BMC research notes · 2024Trial
- Prospective randomized trial of skin closure for pacemaker implantation: absorbable vs. non-absorbable suture : PRO-PACE.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2022Trial
- 5-0 Polypropylene versus 5-0 fast absorbing plain gut for cutaneous wound closure: a randomized evaluator blind trial.Archives of dermatological research · 2020Trial
- Comparison of scar outcomes of alar flare region using absorbable and non-absorbable sutures: a single-blind study.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngologyTrial
- Beyond the Knot: A Pragmatic Comparison of Monocryl and Prolene for Neurosurgical Wound Closure.Cureus · 2026Article
- Modern Perspectives on Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Narrative Review on Surgical Techniques, Mesh Selection and Fixation Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- A retrospective comparison of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for elective hand surgery wound closures.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
- Absorbable vs. non-absorbable suture: which one gives better results?Irish journal of medical science · 2024Article
- Short-Term Hydrolytic Degradation of Mechanical Properties of Absorbable Surgical Sutures: A Comparative Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Absorbable versus Nonabsorbable Sutures for Facial Skin Closure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical and Aesthetic Outcomes.Archives of plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Effect of the absorption rate of suture material on oral mucosal scar formation: A triple-blind randomized controlled trial.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparison Between Using Monocryl Suture and Polypropylene Suture in Closure of Alar Base Excision in Rhinoplasty.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Hydrolytic Degradation of Polylactic Acid Fibers as a Function of pH and Exposure Time.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Surgical Strategies to Promote Cutaneous Healing.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Interactions at engineered graft-tissue interfaces: A review.APL bioengineering · 2020Review
- Use of affinity allows anti-inflammatory and anti-microbial dual release that matches suture wound resolution.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2019Article
- Comparison of Nonabsorbable and Absorbable Suture in Total Knee Arthroplasty.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018Article
- Absorbable Vs. Non-absorbable Sutures in Plastic and Dermatologic Surgery Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Which Would You Prefer?Journal of cutaneous and aesthetic surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo report a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the role of absorbable suture (AS) against non-AS (NAS) used for the closure of surgical incisions.
methodsRCTs investigating the use of AS vs NAS for the closure of surgical incisions were statistically analysed based upon the principles of meta-analysis and the summated outcomes were represented as OR.
resultsThe systematic search of medical literature yielded 10 RCTs on 1354 patients. Prevalence of wound infection (OR = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.56, 1.69; Z = 0.11; P = 0.92) and operative morbidity (P = 0.45) was comparable in both groups. Nonetheless, the use of AS lead to lower risk of wound break-down (OR = 0.12; 95%CI: 0.04, 0.39; Z = 3.52; P < 0.0004).
conclusionThis meta-analysis of 10 RCTs demonstrates that the use of AS is similar to NAS for skin closure for surgical site infection and other operative morbidities. AS do not increase the risk of skin wound dehiscence, rather lead to a reduced risk of wound dehiscence compared to NAS.
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.