Comparison of Scar Assessment Score Between Skin Closure with Vicryl Rapide 6/0 and Prolene 6/0 in Cleft Lip Repair

Saba Aziz; Rao Saood  Ahmad; Muhammad Ayub  Ashraf; Muhammad Tahir  Khan; Nuzhat  Jahan; Masooma  Ambar

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v76i2.12801

Authors

Saba Aziz Department of Plastic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital Lahore/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Rao Saood Ahmad Department of Plastic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital Lahore/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Muhammad Ayub Ashraf Department of General Surgery, Combined Military Hospital Lahore/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Muhammad Tahir Khan Department of Plastic Radiology, Punjab Institute of Neurosciences Lahore Pakistan
Nuzhat Jahan Department of General Surgery, Combined Military Hospital Lahore/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Masooma Ambar Department of Plastic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital Lahore/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76i2.12801

Keywords:

Cleft Lip; Prolene 6/0; Scars; Vicryl Rapide 6/0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the scar outcomes following cleft lip repair using Vicryl Rapide 6/0 and Prolene 6/0 sutures, using the Vancouver scar scale and to determine which suture type provides superior aesthetic and functional results.

Study Design: Case series.

Place and Duration of Study: Combined Military Hospital, Lahore Pakistan, from Jan-Dec 2023.

Methodology: Twenty patients aged 3 months to 1 year with cleft lips were recruited Over one year using a convenient sampling method. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups: Group A cleft lip repair with Vicryl rapide 6/0, and Group B with Prolene 6/0 suture. The same surgeon performed all procedures. Scar outcomes were assessed at the 1st, 3rd, and 6th months post-surgery using the Vancouver Scar Scale, which evaluated pliability, vascularity, pigmentation, and scar height.

Results: Of 20 patients, 45% (n=9) were male and 55% (n=11) were female, with a mean age of 6.40 ± 2.30 months. The suture materials were equally distributed and on a 6-month follow-up for Group-A, had 60% while Group-B had 10% normal Pliability. Vascularity was normal in 60% of Group-A, but only 0% in Group-B. Group-A showed 80% normal pigmentation and Group-B up to 50%. For scar height, 60% of Group-A scars were flat, compared to only 0% in Group-B.

Conclusion: In cleft lip repair, Group-A Vicryl Rapide 6/0 provided better pliability, vascularity and height than Group-B Prolene 6/0, and overall scar appearance however there was no significant difference in pigmentation while reducing the need for suture removal and postoperative complications.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Alois CI, Ruotolo RA. An overview of cleft lip and palate. J Am Acad Physician Assist 2020; 33(12): 17–20.

https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jaa.0000721644.06681.06

2. Yan X, Xing G, Wang X, Li J, Sun Q, Shang X. Diagnostic Value and Application of Prenatal MRI and Ultrasound in Fetal Cleft Lip and Palate. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2022; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9410161

3. Salari N, Darvishi N, Heydari M, Bokaee S, Darvishi F, Mohammadi M. Global prevalence of cleft palate, cleft lip and cleft palate and lip: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022; 123(2): 110–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2021.05.008

4. Egbunah UP, Adamson O, Fashina A, Adekunle AA, James O, Adeyemo WL. Comparing the Treatment Outcomes of Absorbable Sutures, Nonabsorbable Sutures, and Tissue Adhesives in Cleft Lip Repair: A Systematic Review. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J 2022; 59(1): 110–120.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665621996107

5. Alawode AO, Adeyemi MO, James O, Ogunlewe MO, Butali A, Adeyemo WL. A comparative study of immediate wound healing complications following cleft lip repair using either absorbable or non-absorbable skin sutures. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 44(4): 159–166.

https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2018.44.4.159

6. Gankande TU, Wood FM, Edgar DW, Duke JM, Dejong HM, Henderson AE, et al. A modified Vancouver Scar Scale linked with TBSA (mVSS-TBSA): Inter-rater reliability of an innovative burn scar assessment method. Burns 2013; 39(6): 1142–1149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2013.01.014

7. Baryza MJ, Baryza GA. The vancouver scar scale: An administration tool and its interrater reliability. J Burn Care Rehab 1995: 6: 535–588.

https://doi.org/10.1097/00004630-199509000-00013

8. Fisher DM. Unilateral cleft lip repair: An anatomical subunit approximation technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116(1): 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000169693.87591.9b

9. . Eisemann BS, Kantar RS, Alfonso AR, Wang M, Diaz-siso JR, Staffenberg DA, et al. Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair 2019; 660–663. https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0000000000001991

10. Finlay V, Burrows S, Kendell R, Berghuber A, Chong V, Tan J, et al. Modified Vancouver Scar Scale score is linked with quality of life after burn. Burns 2017; 43(4): 741–746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2016.11.007

11. Tajirian AL, Goldberg DJ. A review of sutures and other skin closure materials.J Cosmetic Laser Therp 2010; 4172. https://doi.org/10.3109/14764172.2010.538413

12. Abdul Mohsen M, El Husseiny Saafan AM, El-Basiouny MS, ElTagy GH, ElBarbary MAM, Ragab M, et al. Evaluating the Effect of Low Power Diode Laser 806 nm on the Healing of Unilateral Cleft Lip Scar: An Open-Label Comparative Study. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J 2023; 60(1): 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656211053536

13. Feng Y, Sun Z, Liu S, Wu J, Zhao B, Lv G. Direct and Indirect Roles of Macrophages in Hypertrophic Scar Formation. Front Physiol 2019; 10: 1–7.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.01101

14. James O, Adekunle AA, Adeyemo WL. How Does Octyl-2-Cyanoacrylate Tissue Adhesive Compare With Prolene Sutures in Cleft Lip Repair ? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021; 79(7): 1540–1548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2021.01.026

15. Collin TW, Blyth K, Hodgkinson PD. Cleft lip repair without suture removal. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2009; 62(9): 1161–1165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2008.03.028

16. Erol O, Buyuklu F, Koycu A, Jafarov S, Gultekin G, Erbek SS. Comparison of Rapid Absorbable Sutures with Nonabsorbable Sutures in Closing Transcolumellar Incision in Septorhinoplasty: Short-term Outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020; 44(5): 1759–1765.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01864-2

17. Xu B, Xu B, Wang L, Chen C, Yilmaz TU, Zheng W, et al. Absorbable Versus Nonabsorbable Sutures for Skin Closure A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 76(5): 598–606.

https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0000000000000418

18. Frans FA, Van Zuijlen PPM, Don Griot JPW, Van Der Horst CMAM. Assessment of scar quality after cleft lip closure. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J 2012; 49(2): 171–176

https://doi.org/10.1597/10-254