Suture Closure versus Non-Closure of Subcutaneous Fat and Cosmetic Outcome after Cesarean Section: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Heinrich Husslein, Martina Gutschi, Heinz Leipold, Christoph Herbst, Maximilian Franz, Christof Worda, Heinrich Husslein, Martina Gutschi, Heinz Leipold, Christoph Herbst, Maximilian Franz, Christof Worda

Abstract

Introduction: To investigate the effect of subcutaneous fat suture closure versus non-closure at cesarean section (CS) on long-term cosmetic outcome.

Material and methods: Women undergoing planned or unplanned CS were randomized to either subcutaneous fat suture closure or non-closure using a 1∶1 allocation algorithm. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Scar evaluation was performed after two and six months. Primary outcome measures were Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) summary scores six months after surgery. Secondary outcome measures were Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) summary scores, retraction of the scar below the level of the surrounding skin, duration of surgery, and development of hematoma, seroma, surgical site infection (SSI) or wound disruption. Data were analyzed according to the intention to treat principle.

Results: A total of 116 women were randomized and 91 participants, 47 in the closure and 44 in the non-closure group, completed the trial and were analyzed. There were no differences in patient morphometrics or surgery indications between groups. At two and six months no significant differences were found with respect to POSAS or VSS scores between groups. After two months significantly more women in the non-closure group described their scar as being retracted below the level of the skin (36% vs. 15%, p = 0.02) whereas no difference was observed at six months. There were significantly more hematomas in the non-closure (25%) compared to the closure group (4%) (p = 0.005). There was no difference in duration of surgery, SSI, seroma formation or wound disruption between groups.

Conclusions: Suture closure of the subcutaneous fat at CS does not affect long-term cosmetic outcome. (Level I evidence).

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01542346.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Flow diagram showing the progress…
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing the progress through the trial.

References

    1. Brown BC, Moss TP, McGrouther DA, Bayat A (2010) Skin scar preconceptions must be challenged: Importance of self-perception in skin scarring. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63:1022–1029.
    1. Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP (2005) Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:1607–1617.
    1. Mackeen AD, Berghella V, Larsen ML (2012) Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD003577.
    1. CORONIS Collaborative Group, Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P, El Sheikh M, et al. (2013) Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 382:234–248.
    1. Figueroa D, Jauk VC, Szychowski JM, Garner R, Biggio JR, et al. (2013) Surgical staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 121:33–38.
    1. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Gottardi A, Cherubino M, Uccella S, et al. (2010) Cosmetic outcomes of various skin closure methods following cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203 36:e1–8.
    1. Anderson ER, Gates S (2004) Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004663.
    1. Chelmow D, Rodriguez EJ, Sabatini MM (2004) Suture closure of subcutaneous fat and wound disruption after cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 103:974–980.
    1. Huppelschoten AG, van Ginderen JC, van den Broek KC, Bouwma AE, Oosterbaan HP (2013) Different ways of subcutaneous tissue and skin closure at cesarean section: a randomized clinical trial on the long-term cosmetic outcome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92:916–924.
    1. 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 138:29–33.
    1. de Graaf IM, Oude Rengerink K, Wiersma IC, Donker ME, Mol BW, et al. (2012) Techniques for wound closure at caesarean section: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 165:47–52.
    1. Islam A, Ehsan A (2011) Comparison of suture material and technique of closure of subcutaneous fat and skin in caesarean section. N Am J Med Sci 3:85–88.
    1. Meyer M, McGrouther DA (1991) A study relating wound tension to scar morphology in the pre-sternal scar using Langer’s technique. Br J Plast Surg 44:291–294.
    1. Sommerlad BC, Creasey JM. The stretched scar: a clinical and histological study (1978) Br J Plast Surg. 31:34–45.
    1. Xavier P, Ayres-De-Campos D, Reynolds A, Guimarães M, Costa-Santos C, et al. (2005) The modified Misgav-Ladach versus the Pfannenstiel-Kerr technique for cesarean section: a randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84:878–882.
    1. Covidien website. Available: . Accessed 2014, Nov 17.
    1. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR (1999) Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 20:250–278.
    1. Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, McIver E, Courtemanche DJ (1990) Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil 11:256–260.
    1. Baryza MJ, Baryza GA (1995) The Vancouver Scar Scale: an administration tool and its interrater reliability. J Burn Care Rehabil 16:535–538.
    1. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FRH, Botman YAM, Tuinebrijer WE, Middelkoop E, et al. (2004) The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1960–1965.
    1. Van de Kar AL, Corion LUM, Smeulders MJC, Draaijers LJ, Van der Horst CMAM, et al. (2005) Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the patient and observer scar assessment scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:514–522.
    1. Chelmow D, Huang E, Strohbehn K (2002) Closure of the subcutaneous dead space and wound disruption after Cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 11:403–408.
    1. Cliff N (1993) Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychological Bulletin 114:494–509.
    1. Cohen J (1973) Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed ANOVA designs. Educational and psychological Measurement 33:107–112.
    1. Thomas DW, ONeill ID, Harding KG, Sheperd JP (1995) Cutaneous wound healing: current perspective. J Ora Maxillofac Surg 53:442–447.
    1. Tyack Z, Simons M, Spinks A, Wasiak J (2012) A systematic review of the quality of burn scar rating scales for clinical and research use. Burns 38:6–18.
    1. Idriss N, Maibach HI (2009) Scar assessment scales: a dermatologic overview. Skin Res Technol 15:1–5.
    1. Trimbos JB, Mouw R, Ranke G, Trimbos KB, Zwinderman K (2002) The Donati Stitch revisited: favorable cosmetic results in a randomized clinical trial. J Surg Res 107:131–134.
    1. Niessen FB, Spauwen PHM, Kon M (1997) The role of suture material in hyperthrophic scar formation: Monocryl versus Vicryl-rapide. Ann Plast Surg 39:254–260.
    1. Van der Wal MB, Verhaegen PD, Middelkoop E, van Zuijlen PP (2012) A clinimetric overview of scar assessment scales. J Burn Care Res 33:e79–87.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅