Comparison of cosmetic outcomes of absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures in pediatric facial lacerations

Pediatric Emergency Care

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 691-695

  Luck, Raemma ^a   Tredway, Trevor ^b   Gerard, James ^b   Eyal, Dalit ^a   Krug, Lauren ^a   Flood, Robert ^b  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Absorbable sutures; Caregiver satisfaction; Cosmetic outcomes; Facial lacerations

Indexed keywords

COSMETIC; NYLON;

ABSORBABLE SUTURE; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CAREGIVER; CATGUT SUTURE; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FACE INJURY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFANT; JOB SATISFACTION; KELOID; LACERATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL PHOTOGRAPHY; NONABSORBABLE SUTURE; NORMAL HUMAN; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRESCHOOL CHILD; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCHOOL CHILD; SKIN INFECTION; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; WOUND DEHISCENCE; WOUND INFECTION;

ABSORBABLE IMPLANTS; ADOLESCENT; AFRICAN AMERICANS; BANDAGES; CAREGIVERS; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CICATRIX; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; ESTHETICS; FACIAL INJURIES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INFANT; KELOID; LACERATIONS; MALE; PHYSICIANS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; SURGICAL WOUND DEHISCENCE; SUTURES; TISSUE ADHESIVES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WOUND CLOSURE TECHNIQUES;

EID: 84879933492     PISSN: 07495161     EISSN: 15351815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e3182948f26     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Singer AJ, Hollander JE, Quinn JV. Evaluation and management of traumatic lacerations. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1142-1148.
2. Singer AJ, Mach C, Thode HC, et al. Patient priorities with traumatic lacerations. Am J Emerg Med. 2000;18:683-686.
3. Luck RP, Flood R, Eyal D, et al. Cosmetic outcomes of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures in pediatric facial lacerations. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008;24:137-142.
4. Singer AJ, Thode HC, Hollander JE. Research fundamentals: selection and development of clinical outcome measures. Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7:397-401.
5. Quinn J, Drzewiecki A, Stiell I, et al. Appearance scales tomeasure cosmetic outcomes of healed lacerations. Am J Emerg Med. 1995;13:229-236.
6. Quinn J, Wells G, Sutcliffe T, et al. Tissue adhesive versus suture wound repair at 1 year: randomized clinical trial correlating early, 3-month, and 1-year cosmetic outcome. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32:645-649.
7. Singer AJ. Clinical wound evaluation scales. Acad Emerg Med. 1998; 5:564-566.
8. Fosko SW, Heap D. Surgical pearl: an economical means of skin closure with absorbable suture. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998;39:248-250.
9. Gabel EA, Jimenez GP, Eaglstein WH, et al. Performance comparison of nylon and an absorbable suture material (polyglactin 910) in the closure of punch biopsy sites. Dermatol Surg. 2000;26:750-752.
10. Guyuron B, Vaughan C. A comparison of absorbable and non-absorbable suture materials for skin repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;89:234-236.
11. Karounis H, Gouin S, Eisman H, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing long-term cosmetic outcomes of traumatic pediatric lacerations repaired with absorbable plain gut versus non-absorbable nylon sutures. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11:730-735.
12. Holger JS, Wandersee SC, Hale DB. Cosmetic outcomes in facial lacerations repaired with tissue-adhesives, absorbable, and non-absorbable sutures. Am J Emerg Med. 2004;22:254-257.
13. Grisham JE, Zukin DD. Suture selection for the pediatrician. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1990;6:301-304.
14. LaBagnara J. A review of absorbable suture materials in head and neck surgery and introduction of monocryl: a new absorbable suture. Ear Nose Throat J. 1995;74:409-415.
15. Schremmer R. New concepts in wound management. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med. 2004;5:239-245.
16. Hochberg J, Meyer KM, Marion MD. Suture choice and other methods of skin closure. Surg Clin North Am. 2009;89:627-641.
17. Tajirian AL, Goldberg DJ. A review of sutures and other skin closure materials. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2010;12:296-302.