IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0251022.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subcuticular sutures versus staples for skin closure in patients undergoing abdominal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author

Listed:
  • Juntao Feng
  • Xiaoli Jiang
  • Zhifu Zhi

Abstract

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common postoperative complications. Whether the use of staples or sutures makes a difference in abdominal surgery’s infection rate remains elusive. Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify randomized clinical trials comparing staples and sutures after abdominal surgeries. Eligibility criteria involved the SSI occurrence as the primary outcome and the incidence of wound dehiscence, closure time, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction as the secondary outcomes. Results: Of the 278 studies identified, seven randomized controlled trials representing 3705 patients were included in this review. There was no significant difference in SSI rates between sutures and staples in general (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.79–1.22, I2 = 44%, P = 0.1) or in a subgroup of gastrointestinal surgery, where subcuticular suturing was found with a comparable SSI risk with skin stapling (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.66–1.09). Staple closure was associated with a shorter surgery duration, whereas sutures appeared to provide better cosmesis and patient satisfaction. Sutures and staples achieved a comparable incidence of dehiscence. There was no significant between-study publication bias. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated similar outcomes in SSI rate between subcuticular sutures and staples for skin closure in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

Suggested Citation

  • Juntao Feng & Xiaoli Jiang & Zhifu Zhi, 2021. "Subcuticular sutures versus staples for skin closure in patients undergoing abdominal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-10, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0251022
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251022
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251022&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0251022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0251022. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.