PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
Mixed opinions exist regarding cosmetic outcomes of 5-0 fast absorbing plain (FG) gut relative to nonabsorbable suture material, such as 5-0 polypropylene (PP). High quality randomized trials comparing these two suture materials are lacking. To determine whether the use of PP during layered repair of linear cutaneous surgery wounds improves scar cosmesis compared to wound closure with FG. A randomized, split wound, comparative effectiveness trial was undertaken. Patients were evaluated 3 months after the intervention by two blinded physicians using the validated patient observer scar assessment scale (POSAS). Patient assessments were also captured using the same instrument as well as scar width and complications. The mean sum of the six components of the POSAS was 10.26 vs 12.74 for PP and FG, respectively, significantly (p < 0.001) in favor of PP. Mean observer overall opinion similarly showed better outcomes for PP than for FG [1.88 vs 2.52, respectively (p < 0.006)]. The mean sum of the patient assessed components of the POSAS for PP and FG was 12.3 vs 14.34, respectively (p = 0.11). Patient overall opinion significantly favored PP (2.41 vs 3.14, p = 0.043). PP resulted in small but statistically significant better cosmetic outcomes than FG. Pain experienced during suture removal was minimal for most patients.
摘要：
关于5-0快速吸收平原（FG）肠道相对于不可吸收缝合线材料的美容结果存在混合意见，如5-0聚丙烯（PP）。缺乏比较这两种缝合材料的高质量随机试验。为了确定与FG的伤口闭合相比，在线性皮肤手术伤口的分层修复过程中使用PP是否可以改善疤痕外观。一个随机的，裂开的伤口,进行了有效性比较试验.干预后3个月，由两名盲人医生使用经过验证的患者观察者瘢痕评估量表（POSAS）对患者进行评估。还使用相同的仪器捕获患者评估以及瘢痕宽度和并发症。ThemeansumofthesixcomponentsofthePOSASis10.26vus12.74forPPandFG,分别,显著(p<0.001)有利于PP。平均观察者总体意见同样显示PP比FG更好的结果[分别为1.88vs2.52(p<0.006)]。患者评估的PP和FG的POSAS成分的平均总和分别为12.3和14.34（p=0.11）。患者总体意见显著支持PP(2.41vs3.14,p=0.043)。PP比FG产生较小但具有统计学意义的更好的美容结果。对于大多数患者来说，在缝合期间经历的疼痛是最小的。
