5-0 Prolene Versus 5-0 Fast Absorbing Gut

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

50 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2015-10-13

Study Completion Date

2019-10-01

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

When using suture (stitches) to close wounds, surgeons can use suture that is absorbable or non-absorbable. Absorbable sutures naturally break down. Non-absorbable sutures need to be removed. We wish to determine how the cosmetic result of a specific absorbable suture (fast absorbing gut) compares to that of a specific non-absorbable suture (prolene).

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

6-0 Fast Absorbing Gut Versus 5-0 Fast Absorbing Gut for Linear Wound Closure

NCT03303027

Surgical Wound Cosmesis

COMPLETED NA

Comparison of Staples Versus Prolene Suture for Skin Closure at Cesarean Delivery

NCT01509950

Pregnancy Cesarean Section

COMPLETED NA

Comparison of Cosmetic Outcomes of Lacerations Repaired Using Absorbable Versus Non-absorbable Sutures

NCT00933829

Lacerations Wounds Injuries

WITHDRAWN NA

Suturing Distance From the Wound Edge, 2 mm vs 5 mm

NCT03330041

Cutaneous Sutures and Scar Cosmesis

COMPLETED NA

Use of 2-octylcyanoacrylate (Dermabond) Versus 5-0 Fast Absorbing Gut During Cutaneous Wound Closure

NCT02547077

Wound Closure Techniques

COMPLETED NA

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the use of 5-0 prolene during repair of linear cutaneous surgery wounds improves scar cosmesis compared to wound closure with 5-0 fast absorbing gut (both SOC). We will use a split wound model, where half of the wound is treated with 5-0 prolene and the other half is repaired with 5-0 fast absorbing gut. Three-months post-surgery, the scar will be measured via the physician observer scar assessment scale, a validated scar instrument (research procedure). The scar width and adverse events will be recorded.

There are many options when it comes to closing a linear cutaneous wound, and an important consideration is choosing between non-absorbable and absorbable sutures. The overall aesthetic superiority between the two is not well understood. Studies to date have typically compared prolene (non-absorbable) and vicryl (absorbable) sutures and found no significant difference in cosmesis.1-4 One study found an increased pain score at 10 days with vicryl, but not at 6 weeks,1 while others have found no difference in pain.2-4 Another study found an increased number of complications with vicryl sutures, including infections and suture granulomas.4 This supports past observations that absorbable sutures can cause more of an immune response and therefore inflammation, despite the benefit of providing more prolonged support to wound edges compared to non-absorbable sutures.1

There is a lack of data, though, comparing prolene to other absorbable sutures, such as fast absorbing gut. In the setting of blepharoplasty, a study found that a running stitch of fast absorbing gut with a simple interrupted stitch of prolene at each end of the incision yielded better cosmetic results and fewer complications than a running stitch or subcuticular stitch using prolene.5 More studies are therefore needed to compare the outcomes of linear closures using only prolene compared to only fast absorbing gut. Using only absorbable sutures has the potential benefit of decreasing healthcare costs by reducing the number of appointments needed for suture removals, and, if superior in terms of cosmesis, corrective procedures.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Cutaneous Wound

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

FACTORIAL

Primary Study Purpose

OTHER

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

5-0 Prolene

Half of the wound will be treated with 5-0 prolene

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

5-0 Prolene, 5-0 Fast Absorbing Gut

Intervention Type DEVICE

The interventions are two types of sutures: 5-0 Prolene, 5-0 Fast Absorbing Gut.

5-0 Fast Absorbing Gut

Half of the wound will be treated with 5-0 fast absorbing gut

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

5-0 Prolene, 5-0 Fast Absorbing Gut

Intervention Type DEVICE

The interventions are two types of sutures: 5-0 Prolene, 5-0 Fast Absorbing Gut.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

5-0 Prolene, 5-0 Fast Absorbing Gut

The interventions are two types of sutures: 5-0 Prolene, 5-0 Fast Absorbing Gut.

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* 18 years of age or older
* Able to give informed consent themselves
* Patient scheduled for cutaneous surgical procedure on the head and neck with predicted primary closure
* Willing to return for follow up visit.

Exclusion Criteria

* Mentally handicapped
* Unable to understand written and oral English
* Incarceration
* Under 18 years of age
* Pregnant Women
* Wounds with predicted closure length less than 3 cm

Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No