Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35610480›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2022

To stitch or not to stitch: the skin closure of laparoscopic port sites, a meta-analysis.

Lucy P Aitchison, Andy Z L Chen, Clare Toms, Charbel Sandroussi, David A Yeo, Daniel Steffens

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05622110 (Laparoscopic Incision Closure Following Gynecological Benign Surgeries in Obese Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

NCT05622110 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Laparoscopic Incision Closure Following Gynecological Benign Surgeries in Obese Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of Texas Health Science Center, HoustonRan2023 to 2024Enrolled53ConditionsObesity, Incision, SurgicalArmsAdhesive glue closure, Subcuticular closure
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lucy P AitchisonSurgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia. lucy.ping.aitchison@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5875-0272
Andy Z L ChenSurgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Clare TomsSurgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Charbel SandroussiSurgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
David A YeoSurgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Daniel SteffensSurgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious meta-analyses examining skin closure methods for all surgical wounds have found suture to have significantly decreased rates of wound dehiscence compared to tissue adhesive; however, this was not specific to laparoscopic wounds alone. This study aims to determine the best method of skin closure in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominopelvic surgery in order to minimize wound complications and pain, while maximize cosmesis, time and cost efficiency.

methodsA comprehensive search of EMBASE, Medline, Pubmed, and CENTRAL was conducted from inception to 1st May 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to describe the quality of evidence. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. A summary relative risk (RR) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes where data could be pooled. (Prospero registration number: CRD42019122639).

resultsThe literature search identified 11,628 potentially eligible studies. Twelve RCTs met inclusion criteria. There was no difference in wound complications (infection, dehiscence, and drainage) between sutures, tissue adhesives nor adhesive papertape. Low-quality evidence found transcutaneous suture had lower rates of wound complications compared with subcuticular sutures (RR 0.22, 95%: CI 0.05-0.98). There was no evidence of a difference in patient-evaluated cosmesis, prolonged pain, or patient satisfaction between the three groups. Closure with tissue adhesive and adhesive papertape was faster and cheaper than suture.

conclusionTissue adhesive and adhesive papertape offer safe, cost and time-saving alternatives to closure of laparoscopic port sites compared to suture.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyTissue AdhesivesHumansPainSurgical Wound InfectionSuturesSuture TechniquesTissue AdhesivesLaparoscopic surgerySkin closureSurgical staplesSutureTissue adhesive

Identifiers

PMID35610480
PMCPMC9485090
OpenAlexW4281401368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.