Comparison of Absorbable and Nonabsorbable Sutures in Columellar Incision Closure in Rhinoplasty and Their Effects to Postoperative Scar

Abstract

Open technique septorhinoplasty (SRP) provides better surgical control and stronger anatomical assessment; however, one of its biggest disadvantages is postoperative columellar scar. In this study, the authos aimed to compare the absorbable polyglactin 910 (PG) (Vicryl Rapide 6/0; Ethicon Inc.) and nonabsorbable polypropylene (PP) (Prolene 6/0; Ethicon Inc.) suture materials and their effects on the postoperative columellar scar. In this study, 89 patients (61 females and 28 males) who underwent primary open technique SRP were included; 42 patients were included in the PP group and 47 were included in the PG group. Sutures were removed in PP group on 7th postoperative day. Sutures were left to be absorbed in the PG group. Columellar scar was assessed with visual analog scale (VAS) subjectively and with the modified Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale (SBSES) objectively in 6th postoperative month. SBSES results in PG and PP groups were 3.88 ± 0.80 and 3.67 ± 0.80, respectively. There was no statistical significance between the two groups (p = 0.352). VAS results in PG and PP groups were 8.04 ± 0.91 and 7.71 ± 0.85, respectively. There was no statistical significance between the two groups (p = 0.200). No postoperative wound infection was seen in either of the groups. PG delivers good postoperative results in columellar scar. We recommend using PG for columellar incision closure since it provides less discomfort and anxiety for the patient, and less office time for the surgeon during the suture removal.

Catgut Versus Polypropylene Sutures for Transcolumellar Incision Closure in Open Rhinoplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study

“…However, the patients reported greater satisfaction with the use of absorbable sutures because these sutures did not require removal [ 15 ]. This aspect has been discussed in several other studies wherein researchers did not notice any difference between aesthetic outcomes with the use of absorbable or non-absorbable sutures in ear, nose, and throat or other facial surgeries [ 16 - 18 ]. Our current findings are consistent with the literature as we demonstrated that absorbable and non-absorbable sutures do not differ in terms of wound aesthetics and patient satisfaction scores.…”

Comparison of scar outcomes of alar base and columella using irradiated polyglactin 911: a single-blind study

“…Scar formation is influenced by factors such as incision and closure method, as well as postoperative care (1)(2)(3)(4). Previous studies have shown that absorbable sutures can be used safely in the columella without any long-term cosmetic concerns or an increased infection risk (5)(6)(7). Alar base reduction is usually performed during SRP when the interalar distance surpasses the intercanthal distance or when the lateral portion of the ala extends significantly beyond the alar-facial groove (8).…”