A comparative study of immediate wound healing complications following cleft lip repair using either absorbable or non-absorbable skin sutures

Abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to compare wound healing complications following the use of either absorbable or non-absorbable sutures for skin closure in cleft lip repair.Materials and MethodsThis was a randomized controlled trial conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Idi Araba, Lagos State, Nigeria. Sixty subjects who required either primary or secondary cleft lip repair and satisfied all the inclusion criteria were recruited and randomized into two groups (Vicryl group or Nylon group). The surgical wounds in all subjects were examined on 3rd, 7th, and 14th postoperative days (POD) for presence or absence of tissue reactivity, wound dehiscence, and local wound infection.ResultsHemorrhage, tissue reactivity, wound dehiscence, and local wound infection were identified as wound healing complications following cleft lip repair. The incidence of postoperative wound healing complications on POD3 was 33.3%. Tissue reactivity was more common throughout the evaluation period with the use of an absorbable (Vicryl) suture compared to a non-absorbable (Nylon) suture, although the difference was statistically significant only on POD7 (P=0.002). There were no significant differences in the incidences of wound dehiscence and infection between the two groups throughout the observation period.ConclusionThere were no statistically significant differences in the incidences of wound dehiscence and surgical site wound infection following the use of either Vicryl or Nylon for skin closure during cleft lip repair. However, more cases of tissue reactivity were recorded in the Vicryl group than in the Nylon group on POD7. Particular attention must be paid to detect the occurrence of wound healing complications, most especially tissue reactivity, whenever a Vicryl suture is used for skin closure in cleft lip repair.

Perioperative Management of Cleft Lip Repair: A Meta-Analysis and Clinical Practice Guideline

“…All studies had at least some concerns for risk of bias. Studies assessed absorbable versus nonabsorbable suture (Shinohara et al, 1996; Collin et al, 2009; Datarkar et al, 2014; Alawode et al, 2018), tissue glue versus suture (absorbable or permanent) (Spauwen et al, 2006; Knott et al, 2007; Halli et al, 2012), and steri-strips versus tissue glue (Wilson and Mercer, 2008). Few studies showed significant differences between groups, and many studies used different outcome measures.…”

Classification of the journal category “oral surgery” in the Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded: flaws and suggestions

“…The Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (JOMS)45678910111213 was one journal title selected from journals indexed by Scopus and SCIE that was correctly classified as an oral surgery title. (Tables 1, 3) The Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (JKAOMS)14151617181920212223 was one journal title selected from the journals indexed by Scopus only and was correctly classified as an oral surgery title. (Table 1) One journal title that was selected from journals not indexed by Scopus or SCIE and classified as an oral surgery title was Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (MPRS)24252627282930313233.…”

Comparing the Treatment Outcomes of Absorbable Sutures, Nonabsorbable Sutures, and Tissue Adhesives in Cleft Lip Repair: A Systematic Review

“…Additional searches were also done. Finally, only 6 trials (Shinohara et al, 1996;Spauwen et al, 2006;Bhuiyan et al, 2010;Datarkar et al, 2014;Rao et al, 2016;Alawode et al, 2018) met all inclusion criteria, and they were selected for qualitative analysis. A total of 299 participants who underwent CLP repair were included in the outcome evaluations.…”