Suture Repair of Lacerations in the ED: Comparison Between Two Suture Materials

Suture Repair of Lacerations in the Emergency Department: Comparison Between Absorbable and Non-absorbable Suture Material

This study aims to determine whether the use of non-absorbable (i.e. nylon) versus absorbable (i.e. chromic gut) sutures in traumatic hand lacerations affects wound healing, patient perception, and development of complications.

There has been limited data published on suture type in traumatic hand wounds. The only study we found in our literature review was a retrospective study comparing vicryl vs. nylon suture and found no difference in scar appearance, tenderness, retraction, or complications as far as 6 months after repair (2). There have been no prospective studies on this topic. The theoretical advantage of absorbable suture for these wounds is they do not require suture removal, thereby removing the discomfort of suture removal as well potentially decreasing the burden of follow-up.

At the Penn State Health Hershey Medical Center, either suture choice included in this study is considered standard of care and is routinely used. Selection as to whether absorbable or non-absorbable suture is used is based on the preference and discretion of the resident and attending surgeon involved in the patient care. As such, if a patient were to present to the emergency department with a forearm or hand laceration and hand surgery were consulted, regardless of whether the patient opts to participate in this research study, their laceration would be repaired with either absorbable or non-absorbable suture depending on provider preference and the patient would be scheduled follow-up.

There have been multiple prospective clinical trials on suture type in the context of planned surgical incisions, specifically carpal tunnel release, with variable outcomes. One clinical trial looking at a total of 40 incisions found no difference in pain, tenderness, inflammation, or outcomes postoperatively (3). Certain clinical trials favored non-absorbable sutures, reporting a higher rate of infection (4) or inflammation (5) with vicryl suture as compared to non-braided, non-absorbable sutures. On the other hand, other clinical trials favored absorbable sutures, describing reduction in pain scores (6) and pain associated with absorbable suture removal in the setting of other equivalent outcomes (7).

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the use of absorbable and non-absorbable suture material in hand lacerations repaired in the Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Emergency Department.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Subject seen in PSHMC Emergency Department for hand or forearm lacerations (i.e. laceration below the level of the elbow) that require suture repair, in which Hand Surgery is consulted
• CDC surgical wound classification grades I-IV
• Age >18 years of age
• Gender: male or female (non-pregnant)
• Fluent in written and spoken English
• Subject is able to provide voluntary, written informed consent
• Subject, in the opinion of the clinical investigator, is able to understand the clinical investigation and is willing to perform all study procedures and follow-up visits
• Non-Prisoners

Exclusion Criteria:

• Known allergy to suture material
• History of immunosuppression (i.e. concurrent chemotherapy, steroid use or immunomodulatory therapy)
• History of diabetes mellitus
• Pregnancy
• Current Tobacco use
• Age < 18 years old
• Previous skin laceration at same location
• History of previous hypertrophic or keloid scar
• Concurrent tendon, nerve or bone injury requiring trip to the operating room
• Non-English speaking patients
• Cognitive impairment
• Prisoners