Subcuticular sutures versus staples for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis

References

• Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21:98–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menacker F, Hamilton BE. Recent trends in cesarean delivery in the United States. NCHS Data Brief 2010;1–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mi J, Liu F. Rate of caesarean section is alarming in China. Lancet 2014;383:1463–4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Clay FS, Walsh CA, Walsh SR. Staples vs subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:378–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frishman GN, Schwartz T, Hogan JW. Closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions. Staples vs. subcuticular suture. J Reprod Med 1997;42:627–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaertner I, Burkhardt T, Beinder E. Scar appearance of different skin and subcutaneous tissue closure techniques in caesarean section: a randomized study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008;138:29–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rousseau JA, Girard K, Turcot-Lemay L, Thomas N. A randomized study comparing skin closure in cesarean sections: staples vs subcuticular sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:261–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Gottardi A, et al. Cosmetic outcomes of various skin closure methods following cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203:31–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basha SL, Rochon ML, Quinones JN, et al. Randomized controlled trial of wound complication rates of subcuticular suture vs staples for skin closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203:281–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Graaf IM, Oude RK, Wiersma IC, et al. Techniques for wound closure at caesarean section: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012;165:47–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuuli MG, Rampersad RM, Carbone JF, et al. Staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:682–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackeen AD, Berghella V, Larsen ML. Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;11:D3577.
   Google Scholar
• Huppelschoten AG, van Ginderen JC, van den Broek KC, et al. Different ways of subcutaneous tissue and skin closure at cesarean section: a randomized clinical trial on the long-term cosmetic outcome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:916–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Figueroa D, Jauk VC, Szychowski JM, et al. Surgical staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:33–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackeen AD, Khalifeh A, Fleisher J, et al. Suture compared with staple skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:1169–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackeen AD, Schuster M, Berghella V. Suture versus staples for skin closure after cesarean: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212:621.e1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968;70:213–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Kar AL, Corion LU, Smeulders MJ, et al. Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the patient and observer scar assessment scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;116:514–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA, et al. The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113:1960–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011; [updated March 2011].
   Google Scholar
• Wang HY, Hong SK, Duan Y, Yin HM. Tranexamic acid and blood loss during and after cesarean section: a meta-analysis. J Perinatol 2015;35:818–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj 2003;327:557–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma C, Verma A, Soni A, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing cosmetic outcome after skin closure with 'staples' or ‘subcuticular sutures' in emergency cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014;290:655–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reilly J, Twaddle S, McIntosh J, Kean L. An economic analysis of surgical wound infection. J Hosp Infect 2001;49:245–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aabakke AJM, Krebs L, Pipper CB, Secher NJ. Subcuticular suture compared with staples for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:878–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chunder A, Devjee J, Khedun SM, et al. A randomised controlled trial on suture materials for skin closure at caesarean section: do wound infection rates differ? S Afr Med J 2012;102:374–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar