Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35474448›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of dermatology2022

Interrupted subcuticular suture spacing during linear wound closures and the effect on wound cosmesis: a randomized evaluator-blinded split-wound comparative effectiveness trial.

Karin Eshagh, Lindsay R Sklar, Aunna Pourang, April W Armstrong, Harshaan Dhaliwal, Daniel B Eisen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of dermatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03327922 (Interrupted Subdermal Suture Spacing During Linear Wound Closures and the Effect on Wound Cosmesis), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

NCT03327922 nacompletednot on this map

Interrupted Subdermal Suture Spacing During Linear Wound Closures and the Effect on Wound Cosmesis: a Randomized Evaluator Blinded Split Wound Comparative Effectiveness Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, DavisRan2017 to 2022Enrolled50ConditionsInterrupted Subdermal SutureArmsVicryl absorbable suture
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Karin EshaghDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, Los Angeles, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Lindsay R SklarDepartment of Dermatology, UC Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Aunna PourangDepartment of Dermatology, UC Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
April W ArmstrongDepartment of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Harshaan DhaliwalCreighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA.
Daniel B EisenDepartment of Dermatology, UC Davis, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6741-3182
University of California, Davis · USCreighton University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical reconstructions following Mohs micrographic surgery and standard surgical excisions are often closed with two layers of sutures: a deep subcuticular layer and a superficial cuticular layer. Some surgeons feel the need to place many deep sutures in order to reduce tension on cuticular sutures, as they believe this may decrease incidence of track marks and dehiscence, and lead to better cosmetic outcomes. However, others feel that a higher number of subcuticular sutures increases the risk of a suture reaction, which leads to patient anxiety and poorer wound cosmesis. To our knowledge, there are no studies published on the effect of subcuticular suture spacing on wound cosmesis.

objectivesTo determine whether suturing with 1-cm interval subcuticular sutures results in better cosmetic outcomes than suturing with 2-cm interval subcuticular sutures.

methodsFifty patients were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial using a split-wound model, where half of the wound was repaired with sutures spaced 2 cm apart and the other half was repaired with sutures spaced 1 cm apart (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03327922). Both the evaluators and patients were blinded as to which side received which treatment. The scar was evaluated 3 months post-surgery by two blinded observers and the patients themselves using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), a validated scar assessment instrument.

resultsThe total mean POSAS score for observers for the sides that received 1-cm interval subcuticular sutures and the sides that received 2-cm interval subcuticular sutures did not differ significantly at 3 months (P = 0·34). There was also no significant difference in the patient assessment scale score between the two sides at 3 months (P = 0·084).

conclusionsWe found that 1-cm suture spacing was not significantly associated with improved overall cosmetic outcome compared with 2-cm suture spacing when evaluated by blinded observers or the patients themselves. Our results support the use of either interval. What is already known about this topic? Surgeons have differing opinions on the ideal frequency of subcuticular sutures for optimizing cosmetic outcomes and minimizing suture reactions. The effect of subcuticular suture spacing on wound cosmesis has not been previously explored in the literature. What does this study add? There was no significant difference in cosmetic outcome between 1-cm suture spacing and 2-cm suture spacing when evaluated by blinded observers and patients. Dermatology surgeons can use 2-cm suture spacing for increased efficiency, without significantly different cosmetic outcomes, detected by blinded observers and patients.

Indexed as

CicatrixCosmeticsHumansSuturesSuture TechniquesTreatment OutcomeWound HealingCosmetics

Identifiers

PMID35474448
OpenAlexW4224997173

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.