Analysis of study designs and primary outcome measures in clinical trials of investigational suture materials

References

• Regula CG, Yag-Howard C. Suture products and techniques: what to use, where, and why. Dermatol Surg. 2015 Oct;41(Suppl 10):S187–200. PubMed PMID: 26418685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kettle C, Dowswell T, Ismail KM. Absorbable suture materials for primary repair of episiotomy and second degree tears. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jun 16;2010(6):Cd000006. PubMed PMID: 20556745; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7263442 eng.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tavares J, Oliveira CACP, Torres RP, et al. Facial thread lifting with suture suspension. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;83(6):712–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fridman A. Mesh fixation devices and techniques: a review of the literature. Bariatric Times. 2012;9(6):10–12.
   Google Scholar
• Peng L, Y-h L, S-x H, et al. Is absorbable suture superior to permanent suture for uterosacral ligament suspension? Neurourol Urodyn. 2020;39(7):1958–1965.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg JA. The use of barbed sutures in obstetrics and gynecology. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2010;3(3):82–91. Summer;():. PubMed PMID: 21364859; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3046763. eng
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Al-Mubarak L, Al-Haddab M. Cutaneous wound closure materials: an overview and update. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2013Oct;6(4):178–188. PubMed PMID: 24470712; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3884880. eng.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dennis C, Sethu S, Nayak S, et al. Suture materials - Current and emerging trends. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2016Jun;1046:1544–1559. PubMed PMID: 26860644; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gokarneshan N. Review Article New Generation Surgical Sutures. Global J Otolaryngol. 2018June15;16. 10.19080/GJO.2018.15.555932 * Overview of the generation and emerging trends of surgical sutures materials
   Google Scholar
• Verified-Market-Research. Global surgical sutures market size by product type (automated suturing devices & sutures), by material (monofilament & multifilament), by application (ophthalmic, cardiovascular, orthopedic, gynecological, orthopedic & general surgeries), by end-user (hospitals, ambulatory surgical centres & clinics and physician offices), by geographic scope and forecast Apr. 2021. Available from: https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/surgical-sutures-market/
   Google Scholar
• Ivanova A, Zhang Z, Thompson L, et al. Can sequential parallel comparison design and two-way enriched design be useful in medical device clinical trials? J Biopharm Stat. 2016 ;26(1):167–177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA Guidance for Industry. Clinical investigators, institutional review boards and food and drug administration staff “design considerations for pivotal clinical investigations for medical devices” 2013 [cited 2018 Sep 14]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/design-considerations-pivotal-clinical-investigations-medical-devices** FDA guidance on design considerations for medical device clinical trials.
   Google Scholar
• Fatima G, Sushma V 1, Mujeebuddin CS. Medical device clinical trials in Europe. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res. 2020;62(1):205–210. * Overview of medical device clinical trials.
   Google Scholar
• Investigational Device Exemptions (IDEs) for early feasibility medical device clinical studies, including certain first in human (FIH) studies: guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff 2013. [cited 1 Apr 2021]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/investigational-device-exemptions-ides-early-feasibility-medical-device-clinical-studies-including
   Google Scholar
• Fogel DB. Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: a review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2018Sep; 11: 156–164 PubMed PMID: 30112460; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6092479. eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372(71). 10.1136/bmj.n71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation Coefficients: appropriate Use and Interpretation. Anesthesia Analg. 2018;126(5):1763–1768. PubMed PMID: 00000539-201805000-00050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ario D, Wihasetyoko HYL, Susilo H. Intradermal suture effect using polypropylene materials on post-operative scar tissue in cases of lower extremities closed fracture cases. Bali Med J. 2019;8(3):4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asher R, Chacartchi T, Tandlich M, et al. Microbial accumulation on different suture materials following oral surgery: a randomized controlled study. Clin Oral Investig. 2019Feb;232:559–565. PubMed PMID: 29717362; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Başbuğ A, Doğan O, Ellibeş Kaya A, et al. Does suture material affect uterine scar healing after cesarean section? results from a randomized controlled trial. J Invest Surg. 2019Dec;328:763–769. PubMed PMID: 29667541; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carella S, Fioramonti P, Onesti MG, et al. Comparison between antimicrobial-coated sutures and uncoated sutures for the prevention of surgical site infections in plastic surgery: a double blind control trial. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019Feb;233:958–964. PubMed PMID: 30779061; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grin L, Namazov A, Ivshin A, et al. Barbed versus conventional suture for uterine repair during caesarean section: a randomized controlled study. J Obstetrics Gynaecol Can JOGC. 2019Nov;4111:1571–1578. PubMed PMID: 30890314; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He Q, Zhuang L, An Z, et al. Effectiveness of a novel remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bidirectional barbed suture]. Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi =. Chin J Reparative Reconst Surg. 2019 Feb 15;33(2):149–153. PubMed PMID: 30739406; chi.
   Google Scholar
• Kalidarei B, Mahmoodieh M, Sharbu Z. Comparison of mesh fixation and nonfixation in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia. Formosan J Surg. 2019 January 01;52(6):212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karde PA, Sethi KS, Mahale SA, et al. Comparative evaluation of two antibacterial-coated resorbable sutures versus noncoated resorbable sutures in periodontal flap surgery: a clinico-microbiological study. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2019May-Jun;233:220–225. PubMed PMID: 31143002; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6519104. eng
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• López CC, Ríos JFL, González Y, et al. Barbed suture versus conventional suture for vaginal cuff closure in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: randomized controlled clinical trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019Sep-Oct;266:1104–1109. PubMed PMID: 30414998; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Najeeb E, Rashid R, Zaffar S. Effect of flap fixation technique in modified radical mastectomy on incidence of postoperative seroma formation. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2019May;29(5):410–413. PubMed PMID: 31036107; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nestor MS. Facial lift and patient satisfaction following treatment with absorbable suspension sutures: 12-month data from a prospective, masked, controlled clinical study. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2019 Mar;12(3):18–26. PubMed PMID: 30988869; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6440704. eng.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Olmez T, Berkesoglu M, Turkmenoglu O, et al. Effect of Triclosan-Coated suture on surgical site infection of abdominal fascial closures. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2019Dec;20(8):658–664. PubMed PMID: 31009327; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pourang A, Crispin MK, Clark AK, et al. Use of 5-0 fast absorbing gut versus 6-0 fast absorbing gut during cutaneous wound closure on the head and neck: a randomized evaluator-blinded split-wound comparative effectiveness trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019Jul;811:213–218. PubMed PMID: 30797848; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy PK, Kalita P, Lalhlenmawia H, et al. Comparison of surgical site infection rate between antibacterial coated surgical suture and conventional suture: a randomized controlled single centre study for preventive measure of postoperative infection. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2019;10:2385–2391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakdinakiattikoon M, Tanavalee A. Continuous barbed suture versus knotted interrupted suture for wound closure in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Med Assoc Thailand. 2019 March 01;102:361–367.
   Google Scholar
• Santos PSF, Santos M, Colafranceschi AS, et al. Effect of using Triclosan-Impregnated Polyglactin suture to prevent infection of saphenectomy wounds in CABG: a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2019Dec1;34(5):588–595. PubMed PMID: 31719010; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6852449. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sukeik M, George D, Gabr A, et al. Randomised controlled trial of triclosan coated vs uncoated sutures in primary hip and knee arthroplasty. World J Orthop. 2019;10(7):268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabrizi R, Mohajerani H, Bozorgmehr F. Polyglactin 910 suture compared with polyglactin 910 coated with triclosan in dental implant surgery: randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019Oct;48(10):1367–1371. PubMed PMID: 30738711; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zayed MA, Fouda UM, Elsetohy KA, et al. Barbed sutures versus conventional sutures for uterine closure at cesarean section; a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019Mar;325:710–717. PubMed PMID: 29082807; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bretschneider CE, Kenton K, Geller EJ, et al. Pain after permanent versus delayed absorbable monofilament suture for vaginal graft attachment during minimally invasive total hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2020Oct;3110:2035–2041. PubMed PMID: 32845399; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dragovic M, Pejovic M, Stepic J, et al. Comparison of four different suture materials in respect to oral wound healing, microbial colonization, tissue reaction and clinical features-randomized clinical study. Clin Oral Investig. 2020Apr;244:1527–1541. PubMed PMID: 31342245; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisen DB, Zhuang AR, Hasan A, et al. 5-0 Polypropylene versus 5-0 fast absorbing plain gut for cutaneous wound closure: a randomized evaluator blind trial. Arch Dermatol Res. 2020Apr;3123:179–185. PubMed PMID: 31724097; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7192227. eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erol O, Buyuklu F, Koycu A, et al. Comparison of rapid absorbable sutures with nonabsorbable sutures in closing transcolumellar incision in septorhinoplasty: short-term outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2020Oct;445:1759–1765. PubMed PMID: 32700009; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamba C, Hinarejos P, Serrano-Chinchilla P, et al. Barbed sutures in total knee arthroplasty: are they really useful? a randomized controlled trial. J Knee Surg. 2020Sep;339:927–930. PubMed PMID: 31108557; eng
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ghafoor M, Butt MQ, Imtiaz A, et al. Comparison between polydioxanone and polypropylene sutures for incisional hernia during midline incisional laprotomy procedure among pakistani patients [article]. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2020;14(2):682–684. English.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg DJ. Stimulation of collagenesis by poly‐L‐lactic acid (PLLA) and‐glycolide polymer (PLGA)‐containing absorbable suspension suture and parallel sustained clinical benefit. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020;19(5):1172–1178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamali H, Abuali M, Khalili MR. Clinical outcomes of silk versus nylon sutures for suturing of conjunctival autograft in pterygium surgery. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2020Apr-Jun;27(2):110–116. PubMed PMID: 32874044; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7442075. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnan S, Periasamy S, Murugaiyan A. Comparing the efficacy of triclosan coated sutures versus chlorhexidine coated sutures in preventing surgical site infection after removal of impacted mandibular third molar. J Pharm Res Int. 2020;138–148. 10.9734/jpri/2020/v32i1930720
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews CA, Geller EJ, Henley BR, et al. Permanent compared with absorbable suture for vaginal mesh fixation during total hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2020Aug;1362:355–364. PubMed PMID: 32649494; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moran B, Humphrey S, Seal A, et al. Photographic assessment of postsurgical facial scars epidermally sutured with rapidly absorbable polyglactin 910 or nylon: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020Nov;835:1395–1399. PubMed PMID: 32534080; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poprzeczny AJ, Grivell RM, Louise J, et al. Skin and subcutaneous fascia closure at caesarean section to reduce wound complications: the closure randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 Oct 8;20(1):606. PubMed PMID: 33032560; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7545895. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramkumar Ceyar KA, Thulasidoss GP, Raja Sethupathy Cheeman S, et al. Effectiveness of knotless suture as a wound closure agent for impacted third molar - A split mouth randomized controlled clinical trial. J CRANIO MAXILL SURG. 2020Oct;4810:1004–1008. PubMed PMID: 32873466; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz-Tovar J, Llavero C, Jimenez-Fuertes M, et al. Incisional surgical site infection after abdominal fascial closure with triclosan-coated barbed suture vs triclosan-coated polydioxanone loop suture vs polydioxanone loop suture in emergent abdominal surgery: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2020May;230(5):766–774. PubMed PMID: 32113031; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selvest N, Subbaiah M, Maurya D, et al. Comparison of unidirectional and bidirectional barbed suture in vaginal cuff closure during total laparoscopic hysterectomy- a randomised controlled trial. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020 September 30;14. 10.7860/JCDR/2020/44852.14019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun Q, Yang Y, Wang D, et al. A randomized controlled trial of knotless barbed suture stitching deep fascia in posterior lumbar decompression and fusion [Article]. Chin J Tissue Eng Res. 2020;24(10):1585–1590. Chinese.
   Google Scholar
• Sundaram K, Piuzzi NS, Klika AK, et al. Barbed sutures reduce arthrotomy closure duration and suture utilisation compared to interrupted conventional sutures for primary total hip arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Ther. 2020 Mar;19:1120700020911891. PubMed PMID: 32188284; eng
   Google Scholar
• Talwar P, Velayudam L, Kukreja HPL, et al. Barbed vs polyglactin 910: a comparative study of the efficacy in laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure [Article]. World J Laparoscopic Surg. 2020;13(3):113–116. English.
   Google Scholar
• Wang W, Yan S, Liu F, et al. A symmetric anchor designed barbed suture versus conventional interrupted sutures in total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2020Sep-Dec;283:2309499020965681. PubMed PMID: 33267734; eng
   Google Scholar
• Chinchilla PS, Gamba C, García AL, et al. Use of barbed suture in total hip prosthesis. Prospective randomized study. Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología. 2021;65(1):63–68. English Edition.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hosseini R, Mansoorli S, Pirjani R, et al. A comparison of the effects of Two suture materials on isthmocele formation: a cohort study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50(4):101933.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kia S, Amali A, Sadeghi M, et al. Comparison between nylon and PDS suture for maintaining and stabilizing tip projection and rotation after rhinoplasty using tongue-in-groove technique. Eur J Plastic Surg. 2021;44 ;593–600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kowalski JT, Genadry R, Ten Eyck P, et al. A randomized controlled trial of permanent vs absorbable suture for uterosacral ligament suspension. Int Urogynecol J. 2021Apr;324:785–790. PubMed PMID: 32047968; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7771887. eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sevket O, Takmaz T, Ozcan P, et al. Hydrosonographic assessment of the effect of two different suture materials on healing of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Zeitschrift für Geburtshilfe und Neonatologie. 2021;225(2):140–145.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shabbir F, Khan BA, Sajjad A, et al. Comparing complications between polydioxanone and polypropylene sutures during midline laparotomy procedures: randomized control trial [Article]. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2021;15(1):477–479. English.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma AK, Thulasi Doss GP, Panneerselvam E, et al. Use of knotless barbed sutures for closure of intraoral incisions for maxillofacial trauma: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021Feb;592:e72–e78. PubMed PMID: 33384176; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagliaferri V, Ruggieri S, Taccaliti C, et al. Comparison of absorbable and permanent sutures for laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(2):347–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudard A, Martelli N, Prognon P, et al. Clinical studies of innovative medical devices: what level of evidence for hospital-based health technology assessment? J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(4):697–702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neugebauer EAM, Rath A, Antoine SL, et al. Specific barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials on medical devices. Trials. 2017Sep13;18(1):427. PubMed PMID: 28903769; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5597993.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phillips J. Landmark papers in general surgery. J R Army Med Corps. 2013;159(4): 317–318.
   Google Scholar
• Mills EJ, Chan A-W, Wu P, et al. Design, analysis, and presentation of crossover trials. Trials. 2009;10(1):27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cook JA. The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2009;10(1):9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gurusamy KS, Gluud C, Nikolova D, et al. Design of surgical randomized controlled trials involving multiple interventions. J Surg Res. 2011Jan;1651:118–127. PubMed PMID: 20097373; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanatta R, Silva T, Esper MA, et al. Guidelines for conducting split-mouth clinical studies in restorative dentistry. Brazilian Dental Sci. 2017 June 28;20(2):29.
   Google Scholar
• Lesaffre E, Philstrom B, Needleman I, et al. The design and analysis of split-mouth studies: what statisticians and clinicians should know. Stat Med. 2009 Dec 10;28(28):3470–3482. PubMed PMID: 19536744; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ip S, Paulus JK, Balk EM, et al. AHRQ methods for effective health care. role of single group studies in agency for healthcare research and quality comparative effectiveness reviews. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. Bmj. 2001Jul7;323(7303):42–46. PubMed PMID: 11440947; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1120670. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douek M, Smith G, Oshowo A, et al. Prospective randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia mesh repair: five year follow up. Bmj. 2003 May 10;326(7397):1012–1013. PubMed PMID: 12742923; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC154759. eng.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenberg JA, Goldman RH. Barbed suture: a review of the technology and clinical uses in obstetrics and gynecology. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2013;6(3–4):107–115. PubMed PMID: 24920976; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4002186. eng.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu X, Kubilay NZ, Ren J, et al. Antimicrobial-coated sutures to decrease surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017Jan;361:19–32. PubMed PMID: 27590620; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, et al. A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty. 2010Jun21; 10 PubMed PMID: 20596233; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2890387: e43
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vercelli S, Ferriero G, Sartorio F, et al. How to assess postsurgical scars: a review of outcome measures. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(31):2055–2063.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen TA, Feldstein SI, Shumaker PR, et al. A review of scar assessment scales. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2015Mar;341:28–36. PubMed PMID: 25922955
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delgado DA, Lambert BS, Boutris N, et al. Validation of digital visual analog scale pain scoring with a traditional paper-based visual analog scale in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2018Mar;23:e088. PubMed PMID: 30211382; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6132313
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith PG, Morrow RH, Ross DA. Outcome measures and case definition. Field trials of health interventions: a toolbox. 3rd ed. Oxford (UK): OUP Oxford; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, et al. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control. 1992Oct;20(5):271–274. PubMed PMID: 1332552; eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryce E, Forrester L. How long is long enough? determining the optimal surgical site infection surveillance period. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012Nov;33(11):1178–1179. PubMed PMID: 23041824; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lankiewicz JD, Yokoe DS, Olsen MA, et al. Beyond 30 days: does limiting the duration of surgical site infection follow-up limit detection? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012Feb;332:202–204. PubMed PMID: 22227993; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3608264. eng
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teot L. Scar evaluation and management: recommendations. J Tissue Viability. 2005Nov;15(4):6–14. PubMed PMID: 16302500.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar