title: A comparison of cosmetic outcomes of lacerations on the extremities and trunk using absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The primary objective was to compare the cosmetic outcomes of traumatic trunk and extremity lacerations repaired using absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures. The secondary objective was to compare complication rates between the two groups.
  
  
  METHODS
  This was a randomized controlled trial comparing wounds repaired with Vicryl Rapide and Prolene sutures. Pediatric and adult patients with lacerations were enrolled in the study. At a 10-day follow-up, the wounds were evaluated for infection and dehiscence. After 3 months, patients returned to have the wounds photographed. Two plastic surgeons blinded to the method of closure rated the cosmetic outcome of each wound using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Using a noninferiority design, a VAS score of 13 mm or greater was considered to be a clinically significant difference. We used a Student's t-test to compare differences between mean VAS scores and odds ratios (ORs) to compare differences in complication rates between the two groups.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of the 115 patients enrolled, 73 completed the study including 35 in the Vicryl Rapide group and 38 in the Prolene group. The mean (±SD) age of patients who completed the study was 22.1 (±15.5) years, and 39 were male. We found no significant differences in the age, race, sex, length of wound, number of sutures, or layers of repair in the two groups. The observer's mean VAS for the Vicryl Rapide group was 54.1 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] = 44.5 to 67.0 mm) and for the Prolene group was 54.5 mm (95% CI = 45.7 to 66.3 mm). The resulting mean difference was 0.5 mm (95% CI = -12.1 to 17.2 mm; p = 0.9); thus noninferiority was established. Statistical testing showed no differences in the rates of complications between the two groups, but a higher percentage of the Vicryl Rapide wounds developed complications.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The use of absorbable sutures for the repair of simple lacerations on the trunk and extremities should be considered as an alternative to nonabsorbable suture repair.
authors.affiliation: The Department of Emergency Medicine, Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, Newark, NJ.
authors.forename: Cena
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Tejani
authors.forename: Adam B
authors.initials: AB
authors.lastname: Sivitz
authors.forename: Micheal D
authors.initials: MD
authors.lastname: Rosen
authors.forename: Albert K
authors.initials: AK
authors.lastname: Nakanishi
authors.forename: Robert G
authors.initials: RG
authors.lastname: Flood
authors.forename: Mathew A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Clott
authors.forename: Paul G
authors.initials: PG
authors.lastname: Saccone
authors.forename: Raemma P
authors.initials: RP
authors.lastname: Luck
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D004954:Esthetics; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D022125:Lacerations / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D011098:Polyglactin 910; D011126:Polypropylenes; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000453:epidemiology; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D013536:Suture Techniques / Q000295:instrumentation*; D013537:Sutures; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D064232:Visual Analog Scale; D014945:Wound Healing; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D011126:Polypropylenes; D011098:Polyglactin 910