A comparative study of immediate wound healing complications following cleft lip repair using either absorbable or non-absorbable skin sutures.
10.5125/jkaoms.2018.44.4.159
- Author:
Akeem O ALAWODE
1
;
Michael O ADEYEMI
;
Olutayo JAMES
;
Mobolanle O OGUNLEWE
;
Azeez BUTALI
;
Wasiu L ADEYEMO
Author Information
1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, Gbagada General Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria.
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Randomized Controlled Trial ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Wound healing;
Orofacial cleft;
Absorbable;
Non-absorbable;
Sutures
- MeSH:
Cleft Lip*;
Hemorrhage;
Hospitals, Teaching;
Incidence;
Nigeria;
Nylons;
Polyglactin 910;
Skin*;
Surgery, Oral;
Sutures*;
Wound Healing*;
Wound Infection;
Wounds and Injuries*
- From:Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
2018;44(4):159-166
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare wound healing complications following the use of either absorbable or non-absorbable sutures for skin closure in cleft lip repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Idi Araba, Lagos State, Nigeria. Sixty subjects who required either primary or secondary cleft lip repair and satisfied all the inclusion criteria were recruited and randomized into two groups (Vicryl group or Nylon group). The surgical wounds in all subjects were examined on 3rd, 7th, and 14th postoperative days (POD) for presence or absence of tissue reactivity, wound dehiscence, and local wound infection. RESULTS: Hemorrhage, tissue reactivity, wound dehiscence, and local wound infection were identified as wound healing complications following cleft lip repair. The incidence of postoperative wound healing complications on POD3 was 33.3%. Tissue reactivity was more common throughout the evaluation period with the use of an absorbable (Vicryl) suture compared to a non-absorbable (Nylon) suture, although the difference was statistically significant only on POD7 (P=0.002). There were no significant differences in the incidences of wound dehiscence and infection between the two groups throughout the observation period. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in the incidences of wound dehiscence and surgical site wound infection following the use of either Vicryl or Nylon for skin closure during cleft lip repair. However, more cases of tissue reactivity were recorded in the Vicryl group than in the Nylon group on POD7. Particular attention must be paid to detect the occurrence of wound healing complications, most especially tissue reactivity, whenever a Vicryl suture is used for skin closure in cleft lip repair.
