Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Both running horizontal mattress (HM) and running subcuticular (SQ) suturing techniques have been suggested to be superior to other running cuticular suturing techniques. These 2 techniques have not been directly compared.
OBJECTIVE: To compare cosmetic outcomes between a running HM and a running SQ technique in a split scar model following linear closure of trunk and extremity defects.
METHODS: Fifty patients were enrolled in a randomized, evaluator-blinded, split-scar study. One side of the surgical wound was randomized to receive one intervention (HM vs SQ) with the other side receiving the alternate intervention. The primary outcome was the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) score at a minimum of 3 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: Observer POSAS sum of components was 19.49 and 17.76 for HM and SQ, respectively (P = .14). The mean score for patient overall opinion was 4.71 for HM and 3.50 for the SQ technique (P = .02). Overall opinion scores of evaluators were 3.87 and 3.29 for HM and SQ, respectively (P = .03).
CONCLUSIONS: Single-center study of a relatively homogenous population.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no significant difference in the sum of POSAS components between HM and SQ (P = .14), both patients and evaluators had a superior overall opinion of the SQ-treated side (patient P = .02, evaluator P = .03).
OBJECTIVE: To compare cosmetic outcomes between a running HM and a running SQ technique in a split scar model following linear closure of trunk and extremity defects.
METHODS: Fifty patients were enrolled in a randomized, evaluator-blinded, split-scar study. One side of the surgical wound was randomized to receive one intervention (HM vs SQ) with the other side receiving the alternate intervention. The primary outcome was the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) score at a minimum of 3 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: Observer POSAS sum of components was 19.49 and 17.76 for HM and SQ, respectively (P = .14). The mean score for patient overall opinion was 4.71 for HM and 3.50 for the SQ technique (P = .02). Overall opinion scores of evaluators were 3.87 and 3.29 for HM and SQ, respectively (P = .03).
CONCLUSIONS: Single-center study of a relatively homogenous population.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no significant difference in the sum of POSAS components between HM and SQ (P = .14), both patients and evaluators had a superior overall opinion of the SQ-treated side (patient P = .02, evaluator P = .03).
摘要：
背景：已提出跑步水平床垫（HM）和跑步表皮下（SQ）缝合技术均优于其他跑步表皮缝合技术。这两种技术尚未直接比较。
目的：比较躯干和四肢缺损线性闭合后的裂开疤痕模型中运行HM和运行SQ技术的美容效果。
方法：50名患者被纳入随机，评估者致盲，裂痕研究.手术伤口的一侧随机接受一种干预（HMvsSQ），另一侧接受替代干预。主要结果是术后至少3个月的POSAS评分。
结果：对于HM和SQ，观察者POSAS的分量总和分别为19.49和17.76，分别(p=0.14)。患者总体意见的平均得分为：HM为4.71，SQ技术为3.50（p=0.02）。对于HM和SQ，评估人员的总体意见得分分别为3.87和3.29，分别（p=0.03）。
结论：相对同质人群的单中心研究。
结论：尽管HM和SQ之间的POSAS分量总和没有显着差异（p=0.14），患者和评估者对SQ治疗侧的总体意见均较好(患者p=0.02,评估者p=0.03).
目的：比较躯干和四肢缺损线性闭合后的裂开疤痕模型中运行HM和运行SQ技术的美容效果。
方法：50名患者被纳入随机，评估者致盲，裂痕研究.手术伤口的一侧随机接受一种干预（HMvsSQ），另一侧接受替代干预。主要结果是术后至少3个月的POSAS评分。
结果：对于HM和SQ，观察者POSAS的分量总和分别为19.49和17.76，分别(p=0.14)。患者总体意见的平均得分为：HM为4.71，SQ技术为3.50（p=0.02）。对于HM和SQ，评估人员的总体意见得分分别为3.87和3.29，分别（p=0.03）。
结论：相对同质人群的单中心研究。
结论：尽管HM和SQ之间的POSAS分量总和没有显着差异（p=0.14），患者和评估者对SQ治疗侧的总体意见均较好(患者p=0.02,评估者p=0.03).
