Comparative Study of the Outcome of Facial Laceration Repaired by Vicryl Rapide versus Prolene

Farman Mahmood; Asmat  Ullah; Shahid Hameed  Choudhary; Khurshid  Alam; Umar Fayyaz  Ghani; Muhammad Ali  Nasir

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v75i2.9436

Authors

Farman Mahmood Department of Plastic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
Asmat Ullah Department of Plastic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
Shahid Hameed Choudhary Department of Plastic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
Khurshid Alam Department of Plastic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
Umar Fayyaz Ghani Department of Plastic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
Muhammad Ali Nasir Department of Plastic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v75i2.9436

Keywords:

Facial Laceration, Prolene, Vicryl Rapide..

Abstract

Objective: To study the efficacy of Vicryl Rapide versus Prolene in patients with facial lacerations in terms of cosmetic outcomes and complications.

Study Design: Quasi-experimental study.

Place and Duration of Study: Department of Plastic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan Jul 2020 to Jun 2022.

Methodology: A total of 266 patients with facial lacerations were included in our study. Patients were divided into two Groups; one received Vicryl Rapide, while the second received Prolene. Patients were photographed at baseline and ten days post-suturing. Patients were photographed at three- and six-months for comparison of local inflammation and stitch scarring, which were calculated on a scoring system.

Results: The sample was composed of 65.8% males, with a mean age of 35.09±9.32 years. There was no difference between the two Groups with regard to pre-procedure characteristics. Inflammation scores at baseline, at three and six months, were not significantly different (p=0.766, p=0.374, and p=0.854, respectively). Similarly, scarring scores at baseline, at three and six months, were also not significantly different (p=0.066, p=0.733, and p=0.416, respectively). The total complication rate of the study was 9.4% (n=25), while complications were lower with Vicryl Rapide; the difference did not achieve statistical significance (p=0.141). Infection was the most common complication seen: 13(4.9%), followed by wound dehiscence and train tracking, with frequencies of 7(2.7%) and 6(2.3%), respectively. Differences between individual complications did not achieve statistical significance either (p=0.155, p=0.055, and p=0.409, respectively).

Conclusion: Vicryl Rapide sutures have similar outcomes in cosmesis and complications to Prolene.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Salman S, Saleem SG, Shaikh Q, Yaffee AQ. Epidemiology and outcomes of trauma patients at The Indus Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan, 2017-2018. Pak J Med Sci 2020; 36(1): S9-S13.

https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.ICON-Suppl.1717

Otterness K, J Singer A. Updates in emergency department laceration management. Clin Exp Emerg Med 2019; 6(2): 97-105. https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.18.018

Sajid MS, McFall MR, Whitehouse PA, Sains PS. Systematic review of absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions. World J Gastrointest Surg 2014 ; 6(12): 241-247.

Luck R, Tredway T, Gerard J, Eyal D, Krug L, Flood R, et al. Comparison of cosmetic outcomes of absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures in pediatric facial lacerations. Pediatr Emerg Care 2013; 29(6): 691-695.

https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0b013e3182948f26

Al-Abdullah T, Plint AC, Fergusson D. Absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures in the management of traumatic lacerations and surgical wounds: a meta-analysis. Pediatr Emerg Care 2007; 23(5): 339-344.

https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pec.0000270167.70615.5a

Herman TF, Bordoni B. Wound Classification. In: StatPearls Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.

Azmat CE, Council M. Wound Closure Techniques. In: StatPearls Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.

Odijk R, Hennipman B, Rousian M, Madani K, Dijksterhuis M, de Leeuw JW, et al. The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017; 17(1): 355.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1545-8

McCaul LK, Bagg J, Jenkins WM. Rate of loss of irradiated polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide) from the mouth: a prospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 38(4): 328-330.

https://doi.org/10.1054/bjom.2000.0301

Greenberg JA, Clark RM. Advances in suture material for obstetric and gynecologic surgery. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009; 2(3): 146-158.

Tejani C, Sivitz AB, Rosen MD, Nakanishi AK, Flood RG, Clott MA, et al. A comparison of cosmetic outcomes of lacerations on the extremities and trunk using absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures. Acad Emerg Med 2014; 21(6): 637-643.

https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12387

Wallace HA, Basehore BM, Zito PM. Wound Healing Phases. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.

Rosen RD, Manna B. Wound Dehiscence. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.

McGinty S, Siddiqui WJ. Keloid. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.

Javed F, Al-Askar M, Almas K, Romanos GE, Al-Hezaimi K. Tissue reactions to various suture materials used in oral surgical interventions. ISRN Dent 2012; 2012(1): 762095.

https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/762095

Parell GJ, Becker GD. Comparison of absorbable with nonabsorbable sutures in closure of facial skin wounds. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2003; 5(6): 488-490.

https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.5.6.488

Alawode AO, Adeyemi MO, James O, Ogunlewe MO, Butali A, Adeyemo WL et al. 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

Kundra RK, Newman S, Saithna A, Lewis AC, Srinivasan S, Srinivasan K. Absorbable or non-absorbable sutures? A prospective, randomised evaluation of aesthetic outcomes in patients undergoing elective day-case hand and wrist surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2010; 92(8): 665-667.

https://doi.org/10.1308/003588410X12699663905113

Katz S, Izhar M, Mirelman D. Bacterial adherence to surgical sutures. A possible factor in suture induced infection. Ann Surg 1981; 194(1): 35-41.

https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-198107000-00007

Leknes KN, Røynstrand IT, Selvig KA. Human gingival tissue reactions to silk and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sutures. J Periodontol 2005; 76(1): 34-42.

https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2005.76.1.34

Sajid MS, McFall MR, Whitehouse PA, Sains PS. Systematic review of absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions. World J Gastrointest Surg 2014; 6(12): 241-247. https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v6.i12.241

Xu B, Xu B, Wang L, Chen C, Yilmaz TU, Zheng W, He B. 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