Absorbable versus conventional methods for wound closures in surgeries for benign breast diseases: a randomized case control study
Keywords:Absorbable interrupted sutures, Circumareolar incision, Nonabsorbable suture
Background: Surgeons and patients prefer absorbable sutures for surgical wound closure in breast surgeries which are usually continuous subcuticular sutures so that patients can skip a hospital visit for suture removal. But in case of breast biopsies authors usually put circumareolar incisions. Here authors find it difficult to put continuous subcuticular sutures. In this contest authors thought of interrupted subcuticular sutures where authors can tackle the above-mentioned limitations; while actually reducing the financial burden of the patients.
Methods: In this randomized case controlled study authors included elective general surgical procedures for benign breast diseases that was being carried out in the department of General Surgery Govt. Medical College, Kottayam for a period of 6 months starting from January 2017. Total number of cases taken are 20; 10 each in each group.
Results: The mean rank for interrupted method was 14.20 and conventional method was 6.80. Mann-Whitney U statistic was 13.000 and p value was 0.03. Since p value was less than 0.05, authors had clear evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, authors concluded that both the methods were dissimilar and based on mean rank interrupted method seemed to be better method.
Conclusions: Authors recommended interrupted absorbable subcuticular suturing technique in general surgical procedures for benign breast diseases, especially where authors used circumareolar incisions, which saved time of the surgeon and the patient. This can lead to considerable cost savings for the government without compromising clinical effectiveness or safety.
Mashhadi SA, Loh CY. A knotless method of securing the subcuticular suture. Aesth Surg J. 2011;31(5):594-5.
Biancari F, Tiozzo V. Staples versus sutures for closing leg wounds after vein graft harvesting for coronary artery bypass surgery. Cochrane Data Sys Rev. 2010;12(5):CD008057.
Dresner HS, Hilger PA. Comparison of incision closures with subcuticular and percutaneous staples. Archiv Facial Plastic Surg. 2009;11(5):320-6.
Aston SJ, Rees TD. Vicryl sutures. Aesth Plast Surg. 1976;1(1):289-93.
Peled IJ, Zagher U, Wexler MR. Purse-string suture for reduction and closure of skin defects. Annal Plastic Surg. 1985;14(5):465-9.
The boomerang incision for periareolar breast malignancies- ClinicalKey. Available at: https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/journal/1-s2.0-S0002961007005065?scrollTo=%231-s2.0-S0002961007005065-gr2. Accessed 9 Nov 2019.
Zhong-tao Z, Hong-wei Z, Xue-dong FA, Li-ming WA, Xiao-xi L, Ya-fen L, et al. Cosmetic outcome and surgical site infection rates of antibacterial absorbable (Polyglactin 910) suture compared to Chinese silk suture in breast cancer surgery: a randomized pilot research. Chinese Med J. 2011;124(5):719-24.
Taylor JC, Rai S, Hoar F, Brown H, Vishwanath L. Breast cancer surgery without suction drainage: the impact of adopting a ‘no drains’ policy on symptomatic seroma formation rates. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(4):334-8.
Farley DR, Meland NB. Importance of breast biopsy incision in final outcome of breast reconstruction. InMayo Clinic Proceedings. 1992;67(11):1050-4.
Bogetti P, Cravero L, Spagnoli G, Devalle L, Boriani F, Bocchiotti MA, et al. Aesthetic role of the surgically rebuilt inframammary fold for implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60(11):1225-32.