Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 290, Issue 4, pp 655–659 | Cite as

A randomized controlled trial comparing cosmetic outcome after skin closure with ‘staples’ or ‘subcuticular sutures’ in emergency Cesarean section

  • Chanderdeep SharmaEmail author
  • Ashok Verma
  • Anjali Soni
  • Meghna Thusoo
  • V. K. Mahajan
  • Suresh Verma
Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Objective

To compare staples with subcuticular sutures for skin closure in emergency Cesarean sections (CS).

Methods

One hundred and thirty women (undergoing emergency CS without previous abdominal delivery) were randomly assigned to either staples or subcuticular skin closure (monocryl 3-0). Primary outcome of the study was cosmetic outcome [as assessed by patient and independent observer: Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS) and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), respectively], 6 weeks post-operative. Secondary outcomes were wound complications, operating time, post-operative pain (visual analogue scale day 3 post-operative and patient assessment of pain in scar 6 weeks post-operative), and duration of hospital stay.

Results

112 women were available for evaluation of scar 6 weeks post-operative. Cosmetic result of staples was significantly better than subcuticular sutures (PSAS and OSAS: p value 0.022 and 0.000, respectively), with significantly lesser duration of surgery (24 vs. 32 min: p value 0.000) and comparable post-operative pain (pain on day 3 and 6 weeks post-operatively: p value 0.474 and 0.179, respectively) and wound complications (p value 0.737). However, duration of stay in hospital was increased (6 vs. 3 days: p value 0.001).

Conclusion

Staples are the method of choice for skin closure in emergency CS as they are significantly better than subcuticular sutures with respect to cosmesis and duration of surgery. Post-operative pain and wound complications are comparable in two groups. However, staples are associated with significantly increased duration of hospital stay. Trial registered in clinical trial registry CTRI: REF/2013/05/005087.

Keywords

Cesarean Cosmesis Staples Subcuticular Sutures Emergency Skin closure 

Notes

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest with any individual or organization.

References

  1. 1.
    Clay FS, Walsh CA, Walsh AR (2011) Staples vs. subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:378–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mackeen AD, Berghella V, Larsen ML (2012) Techniques for skin closure in caesarean section. Cochrane database Syst Rev 11:CD003577PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basha S, Rochon M, Quinones J, Coassolo K, Rust O, Smulian J (2010) Randomized controlled trial of wound complication rates of subcuticular suture vs. staples for skin closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:285.e1–285.e8Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gaertner I, Burkhardt T, Beinder E (2008) Scar appearance of different skin and subcutaneous tissue closure techniques in cesarean section: a randomized study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 138:29–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rousseau J-A, Girard K, Turcot-Lemay L, Thomas N (2009) A randomized study comparing skin closure in cesarean sections: staples vs subcuticular sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:265.e1–265.e4Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Gottardi A, Cherubino M, Uccella S, Valdatta L (2010) Cosmetic outcomes of various skin closure methods following cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(36):e1–e8Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Graaf IM, Oude Rengerink K, Wiersma IC, Donker ME, Mol BW, Pajkrt E (2012) Techniques for wound closure at caesarean section: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 165:47–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA et al (2004) The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1960–1965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van de Kar AL, Corion LU, Smeulders MJ, Draaijers LJ, van der Horst CM, van Zuijlen PP (2005) Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:514–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Niessen FB, Spauwen PH, Kon M (1997) The role of suture material in hypertrophic scar formation: Monocryl vs Vicryl-rapide. Ann Plast Surg 39:254–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Waard J, Trimbos B, Peters L (2006) Cosmetic results of lower midline abdominal incision: Donati stitches versus a continuous intracutaneous suture in a randomized clinical trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85:955–959PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frishman GN, Schwartz T, Hogan JW (1997) Closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions. Staples vs. subcuticular suture. J Reprod Med 42:627–630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Figueroa D, Jauk VC, Szychowski JM, Garner R, Biggio JR, Andrews WW, Hauth J, Tita AT (2013) Surgical staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 121(1):33–38PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chanderdeep Sharma
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ashok Verma
    • 1
  • Anjali Soni
    • 1
  • Meghna Thusoo
    • 1
  • V. K. Mahajan
    • 1
  • Suresh Verma
    • 1
  1. 1.Dr RPGMC Kangra at Tanda (H.P.)KangraIndia

Personalised recommendations