4.6 Article

A new technique of suturing using adhesive skin closure for uncooperative patients

期刊

INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL
卷 19, 期 7, 页码 1821-1828

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13787

关键词

adhesive surgical tape; cicatrix; laceration; suture technique

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Young patients often do not cooperate with suture placement, leading to the need for a faster, more aesthetic, and less painful technique. This study compared the continuous locking with Steri-Strip technique to the simple interrupted suture technique in young patients and found that the continuous locking with Steri-Strip technique was easier and quicker to perform, caused less pain at stitch removal, and provided better aesthetic results.
Open wounds are usually closed with suture. However, young patients often do not cooperate and prevent proper suture placement. Young patients are often terrified of mild pain and wholly uncooperative, which is why we introduce this timesaving, less painful, more aesthetic technique of placing and removing stitches. 104 patients with facial lacerations aged 5 to 15 years were treated at a single center from May 2019 to March 2021. Patients were randomly assigned equally to a simple interrupted suture group (the SI group) or a continuous locking with Steri-Strip group (the CS group). Suture times, times for stitch removal, pain scores at stitch removal and mature scar scores were evaluated. Suture and stitch removal times were significantly shorter, and pain scores at stitch removal and observer scar assessment scale scores were lower in the CS group. Patient scar assessment scale score was non-significantly lower in the SI group. This study shows that the novel continuous locking with the Steri-Strip technique is easier and quicker to perform, causes less pain when removing stitches, provides better aesthetic results than the simple interrupted suture technique and suggests the continuous locking with Steri-Strip technique would be very useful for uncooperative young patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据