Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section

A Dhanya Mackeen, Vincenzo Berghella, Mie-Louise Larsen, A Dhanya Mackeen, Vincenzo Berghella, Mie-Louise Larsen

Abstract

Background: Caesarean section is a common operation with no agreed upon standard regarding certain operative techniques or materials to use. With regard to skin closure, the skin incision can be re-approximated by a subcuticular suture immediately below the skin layer, by an interrupted suture, or by staples. A great variety of materials and techniques are used for skin closure after caesarean section and there is a need to identify which provide the best outcomes for women.

Objectives: To compare the effects of skin closure techniques and materials on maternal and operative outcomes after caesarean section.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (10 January 2012).

Selection criteria: All randomized trials comparing different skin closure materials in caesareans were selected. Two review authors independently abstracted the data.

Data collection and analysis: We identified 19 trials and included 11, but only eight trials contributed data. Three trials were not randomized controlled trials; two were ongoing; one study was terminated and the results were not available for review; one is awaiting classification; and one did not compare skin closure materials, but rather suture to suture and drain placement.

Main results: The two methods of skin closure for caesarean that have been most often compared are non-absorbable staples and absorbable subcutaneous sutures. Compared with absorbable subcutaneous sutures, non-absorbable staples are associated with similar incidences of wound infection. Other important secondary outcomes, such as wound complications, were also similar between the groups in women with Pfannenstiel incisions. However, it is important to note, that for both of these outcomes (wound infection and wound complication), staples may have a differential effect depending on the type of skin incision, i.e., Pfannenstiel or vertical. Compared with absorbable subcutaneous sutures, non-absorbable staples are associated with an increased risk of skin separation, and therefore, reclosure. However, skin separation was variably defined across trials, and most staples were removed before four days postpartum.

Authors' conclusions: There is currently no conclusive evidence about how the skin should be closed after caesarean section. Staples are associated with similar outcomes in terms of wound infection, pain and cosmesis compared with sutures, and these two are the most commonly studied methods for skin closure after caesarean section. If staples are removed on day three, there is an increased incidence of skin separation and the need for reclosure compared with absorbable sutures.

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Figures

1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 1 Wound infection.
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 2 Wound complications.
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 3 Presence of hematoma.
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 4 Presence of seroma.
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 5 Skin separation.
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 6 Reclosure.
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 7 Readmission.
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 8 Pain scale at discharge (10 cm scale): 3‐4 days.
1.9. Analysis
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 9 Pain scale postpartum (10 cm): 6 weeks.
1.10. Analysis
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 10 Cosmesis per physician (OSAS) at 2 months.
1.11. Analysis
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 11 Cosmesis per physician (OSAS) at 6 months.
1.12. Analysis
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 12 Cosmesis per patient (PSAS) at 2 months.
1.13. Analysis
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 13 Cosmesis per patient (PSAS) at 6 months.
1.14. Analysis
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 14 Patient satisfaction (10 cm scale): at discharge.
1.15. Analysis
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 15 Patient satisfaction (10 cm scale): 6‐8 weeks postoperatively.
1.16. Analysis
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 16 Patient satisfaction (10 cm scale): 6 months postoperatively.
1.17. Analysis
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 17 Total operative time (minutes).
1.18. Analysis
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 18 Maternal length of stay (days).
1.19. Analysis
1.19. Analysis
Comparison 1 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture, Outcome 19 Presence of hypertrophic scar at 6 months.
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture (sensitivity analysis), Outcome 1 Wound infection.
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture (sensitivity analysis), Outcome 2 Wound complications.
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture (sensitivity analysis), Outcome 3 Presence of hematoma.
2.4. Analysis
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture (sensitivity analysis), Outcome 4 Presence of seroma.
2.5. Analysis
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Staples versus absorbable subcuticular suture (sensitivity analysis), Outcome 5 Skin separation.
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Subcuticular suture versus interrupted suture, Outcome 1 Presence of hypertrophic scar at 6 months.
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Barbed suture versus PDS suture, Outcome 1 Wound infection.
4.2. Analysis
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Barbed suture versus PDS suture, Outcome 2 Wound complications.
4.3. Analysis
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Barbed suture versus PDS suture, Outcome 3 Hematoma.
4.4. Analysis
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 Barbed suture versus PDS suture, Outcome 4 Seroma.
4.5. Analysis
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 Barbed suture versus PDS suture, Outcome 5 Skin separation.
4.6. Analysis
4.6. Analysis
Comparison 4 Barbed suture versus PDS suture, Outcome 6 Time to skin closure of dermal and epidermal layer (minutes).

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner