header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

TREATMENT OF THE PAINFUL PRONATION SUPINATION BY THE ASCENSION FIRST CHOICE PARTIAL RESURFACING IMPLANT: PRELIMINARY RESULTS



Abstract

Introduction: The choice of whether to use absorbable or non-absorbable suture in the closure of wounds following hand or upper limb surgery is usually surgeon dependent. In our unit both continuous absorbable subcutaneous suture and interrupted non-absorbable suture are utilised. The use of absorbable sutures offers a potential advantage to the patient and clinician in not requiring a clinic appointment for suture removal. The quality and aesthetic appearance of hand and upper limb surgical scars are of great importance to patients. Few studies have compared the aesthetic appearance of scars following the use of absorbable and non-absorbable suture in hand and upper limb surgical wound closure.

Method: 50 consecutive patients having undergone day case hand surgery between August 2007 and May 2008 with absorbable suture wound closure were identified along with 50 consecutive patients over the same time period who underwent non-absorbable wound closure. Each was sent a questionnaire comprising a visual analogue scale (VAS) for wound satisfaction, a validated 6 point patient scar assessment tool and the short version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH).

Results: 100 patients were contacted by post and 70 responses were received (37 absorbable, 33 non-absorbable). Both groups had undergone a similar spectrum of procedures including carpal tunnel decompression, Dupuytrens fasciectomy, excision of lesions and trigger finger release. Age, sex and QuickDASH scores were not significantly different between groups. Mean VAS was not significantly different between groups (Non-absorbable group 82.4 (95% CI 74.7–90.2) Absorbable group 80.4 (95% CI 71.9–89.0)). No significant difference was found between groups in terms of pain, itching, scar colour, stiffness, thickness or irregularity.

Conclusion: No significant difference in aesthetic appearance of scars exists following the closure of hand and upper limb wounds with either absorbable or non-absorbable suture. Either suture material can be used with confidence with respect to aesthetic outcome.

Correspondence should be addressed to: EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH – 8005 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: office@efort.org