Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Surgery Research and Practice
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 141203, 5 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/141203
Research Article

Comparison of Subcuticular Suture Materials in Cesarean Skin Closure

1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Celal Bayar University Medical School, 45000 Manisa, Turkey
2Department of Statistics, Celal Bayar University Medical School, Manisa, Turkey

Received 1 June 2015; Revised 14 August 2015; Accepted 18 August 2015

Academic Editor: Antonio Boccaccio

Copyright © 2015 Pınar Solmaz Hasdemir et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. L. Gibbons, J. M. Belizán, J. A. Lauer, A. P. Betrán, M. Merialdi, and F. Althabe, “The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage,” World Health Report, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  2. L. Tully, S. Gates, P. Brocklehurst, K. McKenzie-McHarg, and S. Ayers, “Surgical techniques used during caesarean section operations: results of a national survey of practice in the UK,” European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 120–126, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. D. Figueroa, V. C. Jauk, J. M. Szychowski, R. Garner, J. R. Biggio, and W. W. Andrews, “Surgical staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 121, no. 5, pp. 33–38, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. A. D. MacKeen, T. Devaraj, and J. K. Baxter, “Cesarean skin closure preferences: a survey of obstetricians,” Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 753–756, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. G. A. Hawker, S. Mian, T. Kendzerska, and M. French, “Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP),” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. S240–S252, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. C. S. Rodriguez, “Pain measurement in the elderly: a review,” Pain Management Nursing, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 38–46, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. C. Sharma, A. Verma, A. Soni, M. Thusoo, V. K. Mahajan, and S. Verma, “A randomized controlled trial comparing cosmetic outcome after skin closure with ‘staples’ or ‘subcuticular sutures’ in emergency cesarean section,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 290, no. 4, pp. 655–659, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. A. M. Coll, J. R. M. Ameen, and D. Mead, “Postoperative pain assessment tools in day surgery: literature review,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 124–133, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. A. D. Mackeen, V. Berghella, and M.-L. Larsen, “Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 14, no. 11, Article ID CD003577, 2012. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. V. Berghella, J. K. Baxter, and S. P. Chauhan, “Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 193, no. 5, pp. 1607–1617, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. F. Alderdice, D. McKenna, and J. Dornan, “Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 2, Article ID CD003577, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. F. S. H. Clay, C. A. Walsh, and S. R. Walsh, “Staples vs subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 204, no. 5, pp. 378–383, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. A. D. Mackeen, M. Schuster, and V. Berghella, “Suture versus staples for skin closure after cesarean: a metaanalysis,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 212, no. 5, pp. 621.e1–621.e10, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. G. N. Frishman, T. Schwartz, and J. W. Hogan, “Closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions. Staples vs. subcuticular suture,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine for the Obstetrician and Gynecologist, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 627–630, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. A. D. Mackeen, J. Fleisher, A. Khalifeh, C. M. Pettker, and V. Berghella, “Patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome in a randomized study of cesarean skin closure,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 123, pp. 4S–5S, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  16. I. Gaertner, T. Burkhardt, and E. Beinder, “Scar appearance of different skin and subcutaneous tissue closure techniques in caesarean section: a randomized study,” European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 138, no. 1, pp. 29–33, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. P. C. Tan, S. Mubarak, and S. Z. Omar, “Absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures for subcuticular skin closure of a transverse suprapubic incision,” International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 179–181, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus