Advertisement

Suture versus staples for skin closure after cesarean: a metaanalysis

Published:December 18, 2014DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.12.020

      Objective

      We sought to perform a metaanalysis to synthesize randomized clinical trials of cesarean skin closure by subcuticular absorbable suture vs metal staples for the outcomes of wound complications, pain perception, patient satisfaction, cosmesis, and operating time.

      Study Design

      A systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, Cochrane Databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov registries. We included randomized trials comparing absorbable suture vs metal staples for cesarean skin closure. Data were abstracted regarding wound complications, patient pain perception, patient satisfaction, cosmesis as assessed by the physician and patient, and operating time.

      Results

      Twelve randomized trials with data for the primary outcome on 3112 women were identified. Women whose incisions were closed with suture were significantly less likely to have wound complications than those closed with staples (risk ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28–0.87). This difference remained significant even when wound complications were stratified by obesity. The decrease in wound complications was largely due to the lower incidence of wound separations in those closed with suture (risk ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.20–0.43), as there were no significant differences in infection, hematoma, seroma, or readmission. There were also no significant differences in pain perception, patient satisfaction, and cosmetic assessments between the groups. Operating time was approximately 7 minutes longer in those closed with suture (95% CI, 3.10–11.31).

      Conclusion

      For patients undergoing cesarean, closure of the transverse skin incision with suture significantly decreases wound morbidity, specifically wound separation, without significant differences in pain, patient satisfaction, or cosmesis. Suture placement does take 7 minutes longer than staples.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Dahlke J.D.
        • Mendez-Figueroa H.
        • Rouse D.J.
        • Berghella V.
        • Baxter J.K.
        • Chauhan S.P.
        Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery: an updated systematic review.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209: 294-306
        • Berghella V.
        • Baxter J.K.
        • Chauhan S.P.
        Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: 1607-1617
        • Mackeen A.D.
        • Berghella V.
        • Larsen M.L.
        Techniques and materials for skin closure in cesarean section.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 11: CD003577
        • Mackeen A.D.
        • Devaraj T.
        • Baxter J.K.
        Cesarean skin closure preferences: a survey of obstetricians.
        J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013; 26: 753-756
        • Mackeen A.D.
        • Khalifeh K.
        • Fleisher J.
        • et al.
        Suture compared with staple skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 1169-1175
        • Quinn J.V.
        • Drzewiecki A.E.
        • Stiell I.G.
        • Elmslie T.J.
        Appearance scales to measure cosmetic outcomes of healed lacerations.
        Am J Emerg Med. 1995; 13: 229-231
        • Draaijers L.J.
        • Tempelman F.R.
        • Botman Y.A.
        • et al.
        The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004; 113: 1960-1965
        • Frishman G.N.
        • Schwartz T.
        • Hogan J.W.
        Closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions: staples vs subcuticular suture.
        J Reprod Med. 1997; 42: 627-630
        • Gaertner E.
        • Burkhardt T.
        • Beinder E.
        Scar appearance of different skin and subcutaneous tissue closure techniques in cesarean section: a randomized study.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008; 138: 29-33
        • Rousseau J.A.
        • Girard K.
        • Turcot-Lemay L.
        • Thomas N.
        A randomized study comparing skin closure in cesarean sections: staples vs subcuticular sutures.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 200: 265.e1-265.e4
        • Basha S.L.
        • Rochon M.L.
        • Quinones J.N.
        • Coassolo K.M.
        • Rust O.A.
        • Smulian J.C.
        Randomized controlled trial of wound complication rates of subcuticular suture vs staples for skin closure at cesarean delivery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203: 285.e1-285.e8
        • Cromi A.
        • Ghezzi F.
        • Gottardi A.
        • Cherubino M.
        • Uccella S.
        • Valdatta L.
        Cosmetic outcomes of various skin closure methods following cesarean delivery: a randomized trial.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203: 36.e1-36.e8
        • de Graaf I.
        • Rengerink K.O.
        • Wiersma I.C.
        • Donker M.
        • Mol B.W.
        • Pajkrt E.
        Techniques for wound closure at cesarean section: a randomized clinical trial.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012; 204: S267
        • Aabakke A.J.M.
        • Krebs L.
        • Pipper C.B.
        • Secher N.J.
        Subcuticular suture compared with staples for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122: 878-884
        • Huppelschoten A.G.
        • van Ginderen J.C.
        • van den Broek K.C.
        • Bouwma A.E.
        • Oosterbaan H.P.
        Different ways of subcutaneous tissue and skin closure at cesarean section: a randomized clinical trial on the long-term cosmetic outcome.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013; 92: 916-924
        • Figueroa D.
        • Jauk V.C.
        • Szychowski J.M.
        • et al.
        Surgical staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121: 33-38
        • Sharma C.
        • Verma A.
        • Soni A.
        • Thusoo M.
        • Mahajan V.K.
        • Verma S.
        A randomized controlled trial comparing cosmetic outcome after skin closure with 'staples' or 'subcuticular sutures' in emergency cesarean section.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014; 290: 655-659
        • Chunder A.
        • Devjee J.
        • Khedun S.M.
        • Moodley J.
        • Esterhuizen T.
        A randomized controlled trial on suture materials for skin closure at cesarean section: do wound infection rates differ?.
        S Afr Med J. 2012; 102: 374-376
        • Clay F.S.
        • Walsh C.A.
        • Walsh S.R.
        Staples vs subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204: 378-383
        • Singh B.I.
        • McGarvey C.
        Staples for skin closure in surgery.
        BMJ. 2010; 340: c403
        • Tuuli M.G.
        • Rampersad R.M.
        • Carbone J.F.
        • Stamilio D.
        • Macones G.A.
        • Odibo A.O.
        Staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117: 682-690
        • Hamilton B.E.
        • Martin J.A.
        • Ventura S.J.
        Births: preliminary data for 2009.
        Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010; 59: 1-19
        • Reilly J.
        • Twaddle S.
        • McIntosh J.
        • Kean L.
        An economic analysis of surgical wound infection.
        J Hosp Infect. 2001; 49: 245-249