Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32569183›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2020

Surgical wound closure by staples or sutures?: Systematic review.

Giovanni Cochetti, Iosief Abraha, Justus Randolph, Alessandro Montedori, Andrea Boni, Alberto Arezzo, Elena Mazza, Jacopo Adolfo Rossi De Vermandois, Roberto Cirocchi, Ettore Mearini

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Comparison of Adhesive Wound Closure Devices in an Orthopaedic Patient.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2022
    Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Stapler for corneal transplantation: a hypothesis.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Giovanni CochettiDepartment of Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Perugia.
Iosief AbrahaHealth Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Perugia, Italy.
Justus RandolphTift College of Education, Mercer University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Alessandro MontedoriHealth Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Perugia, Italy.
Andrea BoniDepartment of Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Perugia.
Alberto ArezzoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Turin.
Elena MazzaDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Turin.
Jacopo Adolfo Rossi De VermandoisDepartment of Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Perugia.ORCID 0000-0003-3145-7049
Roberto CirocchiDepartment of General Surgery, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy.
Ettore MeariniDepartment of Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Perugia.
University of Perugia · ITUniversity of Turin · ITMercer University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo compare the effects of sutures and staples for skin closure of surgical wounds. MATERIAL AND

methodsWe included published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomized trials comparing staples with sutures. Patients were adults (aged 18 years or over) who had undergone any type of surgery. The primary outcomes were risk of overall and severe wound infection. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, readmission rate, adverse events, patient satisfaction with cosmetic results, postoperative pain.

resultsForty-two very low to low quality RCTs with a total of 11,067 patients were included. Sutures resulted in slightly fewer overall wound infections (4.90%) compared to staples (6.75%) but it is uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups (risk ratio [RR] 1.20, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.80-1.79; patients = 9864; studies = 34; I = 70%). The evidence was also insufficient to state a difference in terms of severe wound infection (staples 1.4% vs sutures 1.3%; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.61-1.89; patients = 3036; studies = 17; I = 0%), grade of satisfaction (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91-1.07; patients = 3243; studies = 14; I = 67%) and hospital stay. Staples may increase the risk of adverse events (7.3% for staples vs 3.5% for sutures; RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.44-2.79; patients = 6246; studies = 21; I = 33%), readmission rate (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.18-9.05; patients = 2466; studies = 5; I = 66%) and postoperative pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.41,95%CI -0.35 to 1.16; I = 88%, patients = 390 patients, studies = 5).

conclusionsDue to the lack of high quality evidence, we could not state if sutures are better than staples in terms of wound infection, readmission rate, adverse events, and postoperative pain. With a low quality of evidence, sutures reduce postoperative pain and improve grade of satisfaction with the cosmetic outcome.

Indexed as

AdultHumansLength of StayPatient ReadmissionPostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical StaplingSurgical WoundSurgical Wound DehiscenceSurgical Wound InfectionSutures

Identifiers

PMID32569183
PMCPMC7310845
OpenAlexW3036652609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.