Trial reportThe British journal of ophthalmology2026
Prospective randomised controlled trial to compare tissue reactions and scarring with polypropylene versus polyglactin 910 sutures in periocular skin.
Trial report in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04724512 (Randomised Controlled Trial to Compare Tissue Reactions and Scarring With Polypropylene vs Polyglactin 910 Sutures in Periocular Skin), which is not on this 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.
Randomised Controlled Trial to Compare Tissue Reactions and Scarring With Polypropylene vs Polyglactin 910 Sutures in Periocular Skin: SUSY Study (SUture StudY)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe aim of this study was to compare tissue reactions and scarring produced by polypropylene (Prolene) versus polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) sutures in eyelid skin.
methods47 patients with entropion were randomised to 6-0 Prolene or 6-0 Vicryl. Patients underwent everting sutures 1 month prior to definitive surgery involving wedge excision and retractor plication. Only the randomised suture type was used in both procedures. The study suture within the wedge was analysed histologically. Patients were assessed clinically 2 weeks and 6 months following definitive surgery.The primary outcome was histological inflammatory reaction diameter around the suture assessed by a masked histopathologist. Secondary outcomes were clinical scarring assessed using a validated scar grading questionnaire completed by patients and masked assessors and clinical photographs assessed by two masked oculoplastic surgeons.
resultsMean inflammatory reaction diameter was 0.39 mm for Prolene and 0.56 mm for Vicryl. Median histological grade sum was 32 (IQR 22-37) for Prolene and 40 (IQR 27-46) for Vicryl. The median number of foreign body giant cells around the suture was 1 (IQR 0-3) for Prolene and 4 (IQR 3-8) for Vicryl. Only this last result was statistically significant; the lack of significance for other results may be due to the small sample size. One patient developed a clinical granuloma following surgery with Vicryl. There was no significant difference between suture scarring assessed by questionnaire responses or clinical photography.
conclusionProlene may cause less histological inflammation than Vicryl in eyelid skin but clinical scarring is similar. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04724512.
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.