Systematic review of absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions.

AIM: To report a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the role of absorbable suture (AS) against non-AS (NAS) used for the closure of surgical incisions.

METHODS

RCTs investigating the use of AS vs NAS for the closure of surgical incisions were statistically analysed based upon the principles of meta-analysis and the summated outcomes were represented as OR.

RESULTS

The systematic search of medical literature yielded 10 RCTs on 1354 patients. Prevalence of wound infection (OR = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.56, 1.69; Z = 0.11; P = 0.92) and operative morbidity (P = 0.45) was comparable in both groups. Nonetheless, the use of AS lead to lower risk of wound break-down (OR = 0.12; 95%CI: 0.04, 0.39; Z = 3.52; P < 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of 10 RCTs demonstrates that the use of AS is similar to NAS for skin closure for surgical site infection and other operative morbidities. AS do not increase the risk of skin wound dehiscence, rather lead to a reduced risk of wound dehiscence compared to NAS.