Advertisement

Closure of hip wound, clips or subcuticular sutures: does it make a difference?

  • Bijayendra SinghEmail author
  • M. A. S. Mowbray
  • G. Nunn
  • S. Mearns
Original Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate wound healing and complications following surgery for fracture neck of femur. Seventy-one patients were prospectively divided into two groups, according to the method of skin closure: group A had clips; group B had subcuticular vicryl® sutures. There were 41 patients in group A, and 30 patients in group B. There were 13 males and 58 females with an average age of 84.3 years (range 67–100 years). Thirty-seven patients underwent fixation with a dynamic hip screw, while 34 had undergone either a hemi or total hip arthroplasty. The wounds were inspected at days 2, 5, 7, 10 and 14 days, for discharge, redness and infection. There was a statistically significantly greater amount of wound discharge (P<0.002) and redness (P<0.009) in group A (clips) as compared to group B (vicryl). There were three cases of infection; all in patients where clips had been used for skin closure. We concluded that subcuticular vicryl sutures were significantly better than clips in terms of wound healing as well as cost. Except for some decrease in operative time there does not seem to be any advantage in the use of clips for wound closure.

Keywords

Wound closure Clips versus subcuticular vicryl Hip fractures Wound complication Discharge Inflammation 

Fermeture de l’incision en chirurgie de la hanche: agrafes ou suture intradermique?

Résumé

Le but de ce travail est d’étudier les problèmes de cicatrisation et les complications de la chirurgie pour fracture du col fémoral. 71 patients ont été prospectivement divisés en 2 groupes, selon le mode de fermeture cutanée : le groupe A (41 patients) a reçu des agrafes, le groupe B (30 patients) une suture résorbable (Vicryl®). Il y avait 13 hommes et 58 femmes d’âge moyen 84,3 ans (67–100 ans). 37 patients ont bénéfice d’une ostéosynthèse par vis plaque à compression (DHS) tandis que 34 ont reçu une arthroplastie. Les cicatrices ont été suivies à J 2, J5, J7, J10 et J14 à la recherche d’écoulement, rougeur ou infection. Il existe de façon significative (P<0,002) plus d’écoulements et de rougeurs dans le groupe A que dans le groupe B. Trois infections ont été relevées, toutes sont survenues dans le groupe où les agrafes ont été utilisées pour la fermeture. Nous concluons que les sutures résorbables sous-cutanées sont préférables aux agrafes en terme de cicatrisation et de coût. Mise à part la réduction du temps opératoire, il n’y a aucun avantage à utiliser des agrafes pour la fermeture cutanée.

Mots clés

fermeture cutanée agrafes fracture de hanche complication écoulement infection 

References

  1. 1.
    Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, Tornetta P III, Obremskey W, Koval KJ, Nork S, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH, Guyatt GH (2003) Internal fixation compared with arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg 85-A(9):1673–1681PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chughtai T, Chen L et al (2000) Clips versus suture technique: is there a difference? Can J Cardiol 16(11):1403–1407PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clayer M, Southwood RT (1991) Comparative Study of Skin Closure in Hip Surgery. Aust N Z J Surg 61:363–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eldrup J, Wied U, Anderson B (1981) Randomised trial comparing proximate stapler with conventional skin closure. Acta Chir Scand 147:501–502PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gatt D, Quick CRG, Owen-Smith MS (1982) Staples for wound closure—a controlled trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 67:318–320Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graham DA, Jeffery JA, Bain D, Davies P, Bentley G (2000) Staple vs. subcuticular vicryl skin closure in knee replacement surgery: a spectro-photographic assessment of wound characteristics. Knee 7(4):239–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jewell ML, Sato R, Rahija R (1983) A comparison of wound healing in wounds closed with clips versus skin sutures. Contemp Surg 22:29–32Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson A, Rodeheaver GT, Durand LS, Edgerton MT, Edlich RF (1981) Automatic Disposable stapling devices for wound closure. Ann Emerg Med, 10:631–635CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liew SM, Haw CS (1993) The use of taped skin closure in orthopaedic wounds. Aust N Z J Surg 63(2):131–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murphy M, Prendergast P, Rice J (2004) Comparison of clips versus sutures in orthopaedic wound closure. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 14(1):16–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oakley AMM, Ive FA, Carr MM (1987) Skin clips are contraindicated when there is nickel allergy. J R Soc Med 80:290–291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Southwell-Keely JP, Russo RR, March L, Cumming R, Cameron I, Brnabic AJN (2004) Antibiotic prophylaxis in hip fracture surgery: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthop 419:179–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stockley I, Elson RA (1987) Skin closure using staples and nylon sutures: a comparison of results. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 69(2):76–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stillman RM, Bella FJ, Seligman SJ (1980) Skin wound closure. Arch Surg; 115:674–675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wolterbeek JH, van Leeuwen AAM, Breslau PJ (2002) Skin closure after infrainguinal bypass surgery: a prospective randomised study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg No 23(4):321–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zografos GC, Matris, Morris DL (1992) Laser Doppler flowmetry in evaluation of cutaneous wound blood flow using various suturing techniques. Ann Surg 215:266–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bijayendra Singh
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • M. A. S. Mowbray
    • 1
  • G. Nunn
    • 2
  • S. Mearns
    • 2
  1. 1.Trauma & OrthopaedicsMayday University HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Orthogeriatric UnitMayday University HospitalLondonUK
  3. 3.MaidstoneEngland

Personalised recommendations