We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Use of 5-0 Fast Absorbing Gut versus 6-0 Fast Absorbing Gut during cutaneous wound closure on the head and neck: A randomized evaluator-blinded split-wound comparative effectiveness trial.
BACKGROUND: Absorbable suture material (Fast Absorbing Gut [FG], Ethicon, Somerville NJ) is often used for patient convenience; however, the optimal diameter of FG sutures is debatable.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of 6-0 FG during repair of linear cutaneous surgery wounds on the head and neck improves scar cosmesis compared with the use of 5-0 FG.
METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, split-scar intervention in patients undergoing repair of linear cutaneous wounds on the head and neck. The scar was assessed 3 months after surgery via the Physician Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), a validated instrument.
RESULTS: The difference in the sum of the POSAS component scores for 6-0 FG (12.03) compared with that for 5-0 FG (13.11) was not statistically significant (P = .26). Observer overall opinion was similar for both interventions, at 2.49 for 6-0 FG vs 2.64 for 5-0 FG (P = .54). The difference in the number of complications in the 5-0 FG group (15) vs the 6-0 FG group (10) was not statistically significant (P = .40).
LIMITATIONS: Single-center study with wounds limited to the head and neck in white individuals, with a predominance of men.
CONCLUSION: For linear repair of cutaneous wounds, 6-0 FG was not statistically different for cosmetic outcomes, scar width, and complications compared with 5-0 FG.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of 6-0 FG during repair of linear cutaneous surgery wounds on the head and neck improves scar cosmesis compared with the use of 5-0 FG.
METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, split-scar intervention in patients undergoing repair of linear cutaneous wounds on the head and neck. The scar was assessed 3 months after surgery via the Physician Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), a validated instrument.
RESULTS: The difference in the sum of the POSAS component scores for 6-0 FG (12.03) compared with that for 5-0 FG (13.11) was not statistically significant (P = .26). Observer overall opinion was similar for both interventions, at 2.49 for 6-0 FG vs 2.64 for 5-0 FG (P = .54). The difference in the number of complications in the 5-0 FG group (15) vs the 6-0 FG group (10) was not statistically significant (P = .40).
LIMITATIONS: Single-center study with wounds limited to the head and neck in white individuals, with a predominance of men.
CONCLUSION: For linear repair of cutaneous wounds, 6-0 FG was not statistically different for cosmetic outcomes, scar width, and complications compared with 5-0 FG.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app