Comparison of Nonabsorbable and Absorbable Suture in Total Knee Arthroplasty

Shuguang Liu, Yunmei Wang, Ronak N Kotian, Hui Li, Yufei Mi, Yumin Zhang, Xijing He, Shuguang Liu, Yunmei Wang, Ronak N Kotian, Hui Li, Yufei Mi, Yumin Zhang, Xijing He

Abstract

BACKGROUND Wound closure of KA is important for postoperative rehabilitation. At present there is still no consensus on the best wound closure technique for KA. We performed the present study to determine whether absorbable suture is better than nonabsorbable suture in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 180 patients who underwent TKA were divided into 3 groups: 80 cases of nonabsorbable suture, 50 cases of 2-0 absorbable suture, and 50 cases of 4-0 absorbable suture. The time required for closure, frequency of gauze change, length of stay in hospital, adverse events, range of motion (ROM) after 3 months postoperatively, and VAS score of wounds were calculated. Comparison was made to explore any significant differences between different groups. RESULTS There were significant differences between the nonabsorbable group and the absorbable group with regards to closure time, frequency of gauze change, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Closure time was longer in the absorbable group than in the nonabsorbable group. Frequency of gauze change, hospital LOS, and adverse events were lower, and VAS was higher in the absorbable group. Closure time was longer in the 4-0 absorbable group than in the 2-0 group. There was no significant difference between the 4-0 group and 2-0 group in other variables. There was no significant difference in long-term ROM among all groups. CONCLUSIONS Absorbable suture in TKA reduces the incidence of fatty liquefaction, frequency of gauze change, and postoperative LOS. It improves the cosmetic appearance and overall reduces the economic cost. There was no significant effect on early and long-term functional ROM. In conclusion, absorbable suture can be used in TKA when appropriately indicated.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Three layers were sutured. (A) Showed the tendon layer was closed using nonabsorbable suture. (B) Showed the subcutaneous layer was closed using nonabsorbable suture. (C) Showed the skin layer was closed by absorbable suture.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Showed the running subcuticular technique for absorbable suture group. (B) Showed vertical mattress for nonabsorbable suture group. The dotted line means the suture is hidden in the soft tissue. The real line means the suture could be seen from outside.

References

    1. Zhang W, Xue D, Yin H, et al. Barbed versus traditional sutures for wound closure in knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19764.
    1. Smith TO, Sexton D, Mann C, Donell S. Sutures versus staples for skin closure in orthopaedic surgery: Meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;340:c1199.
    1. Iavazzo C, Gkegkes ID, Vouloumanou EK, et al. Sutures versus staples for the management of surgical wounds: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am Surg. 2011;77:1206–21.
    1. Coulthard P, Esposito M, Worthington HV, et al. Tissue adhesives for closure of surgical incisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(5):CD004287.
    1. Krebs VE, Elmallah RK, Khlopas A, et al. Wound closure techniques for total knee arthroplasty: An evidence-based review of the literature. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:633–38.
    1. Quinn J, Drzewiecki A, Stiell I, Elmslie T. Appearance scales to measure cosmetic outcomes of healed lacerations. Am J Emerg Med. 1995;13:229–31.
    1. Khan R, Fick D, Yao F, et al. A comparison of three methods of wound closure following arthroplasty: A prospective, randomised, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(2):238–42.
    1. Navali AM, Tabrizi A. Comparison of three skin closure methods in knee mid-anterior incisions. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2014;2:98–102.
    1. Glennie RA, Korczak A, Naudie DD, et al. Monocryl and dermabond vs. staples in total hip arthroplasty performed through a lateral skin incision: A randomized controlled trial using a patient-centered assessment tool. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:2431–35.
    1. Mudd CD, Boudreau JA, Moed BR. A prospective randomized comparison of two skin closure techniques in acetabular fracture surgery. J Orthop Traumatol. 2014;15:189–94.
    1. Cho EH, Garcia R, Pien I, et al. An algorithmic approach for managing orthopaedic surgical wounds of the foot and ankle. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:1921–29.
    1. Gravvanis A, Kyriakopoulos A, Kateros K, Tsoutsos D. Flap reconstruction of the knee: A review of current concepts and a proposed algorithm. World J Orthop. 2014;5:603–13.
    1. Sajid MS, McFall MR, Whitehouse PA, Sains PS. Systematic review of absorbable vs. non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;6:241–47.
    1. Hasdemir PS, Guvenal T, Ozcakir HT, et al. Comparison of subcuticular suture materials in cesarean skin closure. Surg Res Pract. 2015;2015 141203.
    1. Wyles CC, Jacobson SR, Houdek MT, et al. The Chitranjan Ranawat award: Running subcuticular closure enables the most robust perfusion after TKA: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:47–56.
    1. Duchman KR, Pugely AJ, Martin CT, et al. Operative time affects short-term complications in total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:1285–91.
    1. Badawy M, Espehaug B, Fenstad AM, et al. Patient and surgical factors affecting procedure duration and revision risk due to deep infection in primary total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18:544.
    1. Naranje S, Lendway L, Mehle S, Gioe TJ. Does operative time affect infection rate in primary total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:64–69.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit