Oblique intradermal suture as a faster choice for intradermal closure: a randomized equivalence trial

Abstract

Performing interrupted intradermal suture during bi-layered skin closure is time consuming. The oblique intradermal suture is hypothesized to be a faster choice for intradermal closure while yielding similar wound cosmetic outcomes. This study aims to demonstrate the equivalence of wound outcomes between the interrupted oblique intradermal suture (OIS) and conventional interrupted intradermal suture (IS) methods. This prospective, multicenter, double-blind randomized equivalence trial included patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery with a linear incision wound. A split-wound model was used. One half of the wound was sutured using IS method and the other using OIS method. Wounds were evaluated at 1 week and 2 months after surgery. Of the 120 patients, OIS was found to be equivalent to IS for all clinical outcome parameters. OIS was associated with 50% reduction in suture time and the number of stitches required, and a 40% reduction in suture material used (p < .001). Rates of wound dehiscence and infection were not different between methods. Wound outcomes using OIS were equivalent to those observed when using IS, except that OIS yielded reductions in suturing time, number of stitches and suturing material used. OIS is a cost and clinically effective wound closure method.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03001856.

Meeting presentation: 7th Bozner Symposium of Plastic Surgery, Bozen, Italy, January 2017.

Keywords:

• Sutures
• wounds
• intradermal suture
• oblique intradermal suture

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the patients that participated in this study and Professor Emeritus Nopadol Wora-urai for his support of this study. The authors would also like to thank Miss Kamonwan Soonklang for assistance with statistical analysis.

Disclosure statement

The authors hereby declare no personal or professional conflicts of interest regarding any aspect of this study. None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by a grant from the Mae Fah Luang University Research Fund. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Commercial companies had no involvement in this study