Mechanisms of Wound Healing, Suture Material, and Wound Closure

  • Luis Sanz
  • Samuel Smith
Part of the Clinical Perspectives in Obstetrics and Gynecology book series (CPOG)


The selection of the proper incision, suture material, and closure technique is very important to assist the patient’s own repair mechanism and restore normal anatomic relationships after surgery. Attention to these details also prevents such complications as dehiscence and infection, assuring a good cosmetic result. A good understanding of the physiologic process of wound healing is needed to properly select the suture material and closure technique and consequently markedly decrease morbidity and mortality. We discuss the pathophysiology of wound healing, properties of suture materials, and techniques of wound closure.


Tensile Strength Wound Closure Suture Material United States Pharmacopeia Monofilament Suture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hunt T, Dunphy JE. Fundamentals of wound management. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peacock EE. Wound repair, 3rd edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lavia MF, Hill, Jr RB. Principles of Pathobiology, 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sanz L. Choosing the right wound closure technique. Contemp Obstet Gynecol. 1983, 21: 142–154.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sanders R, DiClementi D, Ireland K. Principles of abdominal wound closure II. Arch Surg 1977; 112: 1184–1191.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bucknall TE. Abdominal wound closure: choice of suture. J R Soc Med. 1981; 74: 580–585.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edlitch RF, Panek PH, Rodeheaver, GT et al. Physical and chemical configuration of sutures in the development of surgical infection. Ann Surg. 1973; 177: 679–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Madden J W, Arem AJ. Wound healing: biologic and clinical features. In: Sabiston Textbook of Surgery.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu GV, Cauqliere R. Suture materials—properties and uses. J Am Podiatry Assoc. 1981; 73: 57–63.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Swanson NA, Tromovitch TA. Suture materials; 1980’s properties, uses, and abuses. Int J Dermatol. 1982; 21: 373–378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown SE, Allen WH, Robins RN. The use of delayed primary wound closure in preventing wound infections. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977; 127: 713–717.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kenady DE. Management of abdominal wounds. Surg Clin North Am. 1984; 64: 803–807.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stillman RM, Bella FJ, Seligman SJ. Skin wound closure—the effect of various wound closure methods on susceptibility to infection. Arch Surg. 1980; 115: 674–675.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greenburg AG, Saik RP, Peskin GW. Wound dehiscence: pathophysiology and prevention. Arch Surg. 1979; 114: 143–146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trimbus JB. Security of various knots commonly used in surgical practice. Obstet Gynecol. 1984; 64: 274–280.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Helmkamp BF. Abdominal wound dehiscence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977; 128: 803–807.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wallace D, Hernandez W, Schlaerth J, et al. Prevention of abdominal wound disruption utilizing the Smead—Jones closure technique. Obstet Gynecol. 1980; 56: 226–230.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murray DH, Blaisdell FW. Use of synthetic absorbable sutures for abdominal and chest wound closures. Arch Surg. 1978; 113: 477–480.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Howes EL. Strength studies of polyglycolic acid versus catgut sutures of the same size. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1973; 137: 15–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gomel V, McComb P, Boer-Meisel M. Histologic reactions to polyglactin-910, polyethylene, and nylon microsuture. J Reprod Med. 1980; 25: 56–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herrmann JB. Changes in tensile strength and knot security of surgical sutures in vivo. Arch Surg. 1973; 106: 707–710.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rahmann MS, Way S. Polyglycolic and surgical sutures in gynecologic surgery. J Obstet Gynecol Br Commonw. 1972; 79: 849–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laufman H. Synthetic absorbable sutures. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1977; 145: 597–608.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Malt RA. Abdominal incisions, sutures and sacrilege. N Engl J Med. 1977; 297: 722–724.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones TE, Newell ET, Brubaker RE. The use of alloy steel wire in the closure of abdominal wounds. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1941; 72: 1056–1059.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haxton HA, Clegg JF, Lord MG. A comparison of catgut and polyglycolic acid sutures in human abdominal wounds. J Abdom Surg. 1974; 16: 239–244.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Viljanto J. Disinfection of surgical wounds without inhibition of normal wound healing. Arch Surg. 1980; 115: 253–256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sindelar WF, Mason R. Irrigation of subcutaneous tissue with povidone-iodine solution for prevention of surgical wound infections. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1979; 148: 227–231.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baggish MS, Lee WK. Abdominal wound disruption. Obstet Gynecol. 1975; 46: 530–534.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aston SJ. The choice of suture material for skin closure. J Dermatol Surg. 1976; 2: 57–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bucknall TE, Ellis LT. The choice of a suture to close abdominal incisions. Eur Surg Res. 1983; 15: 59–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hunt TK. Wound healing. In: Current surgical diagnosis and treatment. Lange Medical Publications, 1977.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Laufman H. Is catgut obsolete. Surg Obstet Gynecol. 1977; 145: 587–588.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stroumtsos O. Perspectives on sutures. Monograph by Davis and Geek, 1978.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stone HH, Hoefling SJ, Strom PR. Abdominal incisions: transverse vs vertical placement and continuous vs interrupted closure. South Med J. 1983; 76: 1106–1108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wasiljew BK, Winchester DP. Experience with continuous absorbable suture in the closure of abdominal incisions. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1982; 4: 378–380.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Greenall MJ, Evans M, Pollock AV. Midline or transverse laparotomy? A random controlled clinical trial. Part I: Influence on healing. Br J Surg. 1980; 67: 188–190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Goligher JC, Irvin TT, Johnston D. A controlled clinical trial of three methods of closure of laparotomy wounds. Br J Surg. 1975; 62: 823–829.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Corman ML, Veidenheimer MC. Controlled clinical trial of three suture materials for abdominal wall closure after bowel operations. Am J Surg. 1981; 141: 510–513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Irvin TT, Koffman CG, Duthie HL. Layer closure of laparotomy wounds with absorbable and nonabsorbable suture materials. Br J Surg. 1976; 63: 793–796.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kronborg O. Polyglycolic acid versus silk for fascial closure of abdominal incisions. Acta Chir Scand. 1976; 142: 9–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Keill RH, Keitzer WF, Nichols SK. Abdominal wound dehiscence. Arch Surg. 1973; 106: 573–577.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mendoza CB, Postlethwait RW. Incidence of wound disruption following operation. Arch Surg. 1970; 101: 396–399.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pratt JH. Wound healing—evisceration. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1973; 16: 126–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tweedie FJ, Long RC. Abdominal wound disruption. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1954; 99: 41–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Alexander HC, Prudden JF. The causes of abdominal wound disruption. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1966; 122: 1223–1227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dudley HAF. Layered and mass closure of the abdominal wall. Br J Surg. 1970; 57: 664–668.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tera W, Aberg C. Tissue strength of structures involved in musculo-aponecrotic layer sutures in laparotomy incisions. Acta Chir Scand. 1976; 142: 349–355.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ellis H, Heddle R. Does the peritoneum need to be closed at laparotomy? Br J Surg. 1977; 64: 733–736.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Karipincni RC, Wilk PJ, Danese CA. The role of the peritoneum in the healing of abdominal incisions. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1976; 142: 729–730.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Haxton HA. The absorption of catgut in human abdominal wounds. Br J Surg. 1963; 50: 534–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis Sanz
  • Samuel Smith

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations