For over 2000 years, suturing has been the most popular method for wound closure. Today, numerous repair options are readily available and can address virtually any case scenario. Lower probabilities of infection, dehiscence, and improved aesthetic results are but a few of the advantages derived from an educated selection of the proper suturing and/or wound repair materials. This article provides an in-depth review of suturing and alternate wound closure materials in cutaneous and cosmetic surgery.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SnyderCC. On the history of the suture. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1976;58:401–406.
2.
HerrmanJB. Tensile strength and knot security of surgical suture materials. Am Surg. 1971;37:209–217.
3.
HolmlundDEW. Physical properties of surgical suture materials: Stress-strain relationship, stress-relaxation and irreversible elongation. Ann Surg. 1976;184:189–193.
4.
AlexanderJWKaplanTZAttemeierWA. Role of suture materials in development of wound infection. Ann Surg. 1967;165:192–199.
5.
SharpWVBeldenTAKingPHTeaguePC. Suture resistance to infection. Surgery. 1982;91:61–63.
6.
JenkinsHPHudinaLSOwenFMJrSwisherFM. Absorption of surgical gut (cat gut). III. Duration in the tissue after loss of tensile strength. Arch Surg. 1942;45:74–102.
7.
CraigPHWilliamsJADavisKW. A biologic comparison of polyglactin 910 and polyglycolic acid synthetic absorbable sutures. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1975;141:1–10.
RodeheaverGTPowellTAThackerJGEdlichRF. Mechanical performance of monofilament synthetic absorbable sutures. Am J Surg. 1987;154:544–547.
10.
Van WinkleWSalthouseTN. Biological Response to Sutures and Principles of Suture Selection. Somerville, NJ: Ethicon Research Foundation, Somerville; 1976.
11.
PostlethwaitRW. Long-term comparison study of non-absorbable sutures. Ann Surg. 1970;271:892–898.
12.
NilssonT. Mechanical properties of Prolene and Ethilon sutures after three weeks in vivo. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982;16:11–15.
13.
GreenwaldDShumwaySAlbearPGottliebL. Mechanical comparison of 10 suture materials before and after in vivo incubation. J Surg Res. 1994;56:372–377.
14.
RodheaverGTBorzellecaDCThackerJGEdlichRF. Unique performance characteristics of Novafil. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1987;164:230–236.
15.
JohnsonARodeheaverGTDurandLS. Automatic disposable stapling devices for wound closure. Ann Emerg Med. 1981;10:631–635.
16.
StegmaierOC. Use of skin stapler in dermatologic surgery. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1982;6:305–309.
17.
StillmanRMBellaFJSeligmanSJ. Skin wound closure. The effect of various wound closure methods on susceptibility to infection. Arch Surg. 1980;115:674–675.
18.
ShapiroAJDinsmoreMRCNorthJHJr. Tensile strength of wound closure with cyanoacrylate glue. Am Surg. 2001;67:1113–1114.
19.
PenoffJ. Skin closure using cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives. Plastic Surgery Educational Foundation DATA Committee: Device and technique assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103:730–731.
20.
MeltonJLHankeWC. Wound closure materials. In: LaskGPMoyRL. Principles and Techniques of Cutaneous Surgery. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1996: 77.
