Absorbable versus non-absorbable suture in carpal tunnel decompression.
This randomised prospective clinical study compared the use of an absorbable suture (subcuticular 4:0 polyglactin 910) and a non-absorbable suture (5:0 monofilament polypropylene) for elective carpal tunnel decompression wound closure. An increased perception of pain was reported by the patients in the polypropylene (Prolene) group. At the 6-week assessment, there was a higher level of residual wound inflammation in the polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) group.
Erel
E
E
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kingston General Hospital, Hull, UK. ertanerel@hotmail.com
Pleasance
P I
PI
Ahmed
O
O
Hart
N B
NB
D020341:Absorbable Implants; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002349:Carpal Tunnel Syndrome / Q000503:physiopathology*; D006801:Humans; D007249:Inflammation; D008875:Middle Aged; D010147:Pain Measurement; D011098:Polyglactin 910 / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D011126:Polypropylenes / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D011446:Prospective Studies
D011126:Polypropylenes; D011098:Polyglactin 910