Trial reportHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2022
Prospective randomized trial of skin closure for pacemaker implantation: absorbable vs. non-absorbable suture : PRO-PACE.
Trial report in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPacemaker implantations have been performed for > 50 years, reaching 1.25 million implants worldwide per year. Despite this, only few randomized studies exist regarding technical aspects of the implantation procedure-in particular, wound closure. Accordingly, the authors compared absorbable vs. non-absorbable suture regarding wound healing.
methodsConsecutive patients scheduled for de novo pacemaker implantation without defibrillation therapy were prospectively randomized into two groups: non-absorbable (Prolene®, Ethicon Inc.) or absorbable suture (Monocryl®, Ethicon Inc.). The wound was systematically assessed for cosmetic outcome at 1 day, 6 weeks, and 1 year post implantation using the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS). Adverse events noted included bleeding, pocket hematoma, infection, suture insufficiency, and revision surgery.
resultsA total of 114 patients (mean age: 79 ± 10 years, n = 60 male) were randomized into the two groups. Of these, 105 completed follow-up (lost to follow-up: 7.9%). Groups were comparable for clinical characteristics or use of oral anticoagulants. There was no difference in cosmetic outcome and incidence of adverse events at any follow-up visit. POSAS scores were: 1 day: 1.4 ± 0.4 vs. 1.3 ± 0.4, P = 0.44, 6 weeks: 1.4 ± 0.6 vs. 1.4 ± 0.7, P = 0.57; 1 year: 1.4 ± 1.4 vs. 2.1 ± 3, P = 0.60. No pocket hematoma or infection occurred in either group. No additional surgery was necessary for local findings. Retrospectively, scar development was straight in the Prolene® group and slightly wavy with Monocryl®.
conclusionSuture material does not influence wound healing as represented by the cosmetic result and the occurrence of adverse events. The choice of suture material used should be left to the physician's discretion.
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.