Cosmetic Outcomes of Three Skin Closure Techniques for Submandibular Surgical Incisions in a Nigerian Tertiary Hospital
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61172/hr4ac510Keywords:
submandibular incisions , wound closure techniques , subcuticular staplers , cyanoarylate gluesAbstract
Introduction
The face is an important part of the body for identification, communicative and adornment roles. Due to its prominence, Injuries and scars on the face have psychological impact on individuals living with them. Besides placement of incisions at the junction of the facial aesthetic units, orientation of surgical incisions along skin creases, and paying attention to surgical principles during wound closure to prevent unacceptable surgical scars, the technique used for closure of surgical wounds also influences the cosmetic outcome of their scars. There is paucity of studies on the cosmetic outcomes of different closure techniques in the maxillofacial region among Africans.
Aim
This study aimed at comparing cosmetic outcomes following closure of submandibular incisions using subcuticular suturing, tissue adhesive, and percutaneous stapler - among maxillofacial surgical patients at the Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano (AKTH). Complications and duration of wound closure for each of the three techniques were also assessed.
Materials and Methods
The study was a prospective cross-sectional study with a calculated size of 60 subjects recruited and randomly allotted into three groups A, B, and C at AKTH. Group A had subcuticular wound closure of submandibular incisions, while groups B and C had tissue adhesive and staples closures of submandibular incisions respectively. Intraoperatively, each wound’s length (centimeters) and closure time(minutes), were recorded, and the closure time per unit length (min/cm) for each wound was calculated and recorded. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) was used to assess cosmetic outcomes of the incision scars on postoperative days 10, 30 and 90 and comparisons of the POSAS scores and closure times per unit lengths of the wounds were done using Kruskal Wallis statistical test. The Subjects were also assessed for the presence of abscess and dehiscence on postoperative day (POD) 7. The level of statistical significance was set at p≤0.05.
Results
Fifty-six subjects with ages 18 to 60 years (mean=35±12years) and a male: female ratio of 2.3:1. completed the study. Patient scale scores of POSAS showed a significant statistical difference (p ≤ 0.05) in outcome scores on POD10 (p<0.001) and POD30 (p=0.04) with tissue adhesive scars having the best cosmetic rating on both days.
The Observer scale scores showed that wound closure with tissue adhesives had a significantly better outcome on POD10(p<0.001). There was no significant difference in observer outcome scores between the 3 closure techniques on POD30 (p=0.12) and POD90 (p=0.73)
Analysis of the closure time per unit wound length showed that the subcuticular technique had the longest closure time per unit length, mean = 2.01± 0.54min/cm. Tissue adhesive had a mean = 0.45± 0.65min/cm, while staple had the shortest closure time per unit length, mean=0.18±0.03min/cm. There was a statistically significant difference in closure time across all wound closure techniques (p < 0.001)
Two subjects had wound dehiscence in the tissue adhesive group while four subjects had wound dehiscence in the staple group. There was no wound dehiscence in the subcuticular group. The incidence of wound dehiscence was however not statistically significant. (p = 0.19).
Conclusion
In the early postoperative period, tissue adhesive yielded the best cosmetic outcome compared to subcuticular suturing and staples for surgical closures. However, irrespective of the wound closure type employed, the cosmetic outcome of the scar may eventually be similar. The staple was the fastest for wound closure among the three closure techniques and may help reduce the operation time if employed. The incidence of wound complications with the three different wound closure techniques was similar.
Downloads
References
1. Versnel SL, Plomp RG, Passchier J, Duivenvoorden HJ, Mathijssen IMJ. Long term psychological functioning of adults with severe congenital facial disfigurement. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(1):110–7.
2. Welshhans JL, Facs DBH. Soft tissue principles to minimize scarring: an overview. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2016;25(1):1–13.
3. Gentile RD. Treating scars to the neck. Facial Plast Surg Clin NA. 2017;25(1):99–104.
4. HocHman B, Benevides Farkas C, contoli isoldi F, Francisco Ferrara S, Furtado F, masako Ferreira L, et al. Keloid and hypertrophic scar distribution according to Fitzpatrick skin phototypes. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2012;2727(22):185–9.
5. Ogawa R. Keloid and hypertrophic scarring may result from a mechanoreceptor or mechanosensitive nociceptor disorder. Med Hypothesis J. 2008;71:493–500.
6. Chike-Obi C, Cole P, Brissett A. Keloids: Pathogenesis, Clinical Features, and Management. Semin Plast Surg. 2009 Aug 1;23:178–84.
7. Tebble NJ, Adams R, Thomas DW, Price P. Anxiety and self-consciousness in patients with facial lacerations one week and six months later. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;44:520–5.
8. Opara KO, Jiburum BC. Pattern and management of acquired facial defects in Imo State. Niger Heal J. 2011;11(1):32–6.
9. González-Ulloa M. Regional aesthetic units of the face. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987 Mar;79(3):489–90.
10. Son D, Harijan A. Overview of surgical scar prevention and management. J Korean Med Sci. 2014;29(6):751–7.
11. Butzelaar L, Ulrich M, A B Mink Van der Molen, Niessen FB, Beelen RHJ. Currently known risk factors for hypertrophic skin scarring: a review. Br J Plast Surg. 2016;69(2):163–9.
12. Anantha Raju G S, Naik SA. Comparative study of primary skin closure with adhesive skin glue and conventional suture material in clean elective surgery. Int J Integr Med Sci. 2016;3(8):384–90.
13. Al-Mubarak L, Al-Haddab M. Cutaneous wound closure materials: An overview and update. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2013;6(4):178–88.
14. Amira CO, Awobusuyi JO. Needle-stick injury among health care workers in hemodialysis units in Nigeria: A multi-center study. Int J Occup Environ Med. 2014;5(1):1–8.
15. Kudur MH, Pai SB, Sripathi H, Prabhu S. Sutures and suturing techniques in skin closure. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2009;75(4):425–34.
16. Efrain A. Miranda. History of surgical stapling. Medical Terminology Daily. 2015. p. 1.
17. Abdus-salam RA, Bello FA, Olayemi O. A randomised study comparing skin staples with subcuticular sutures for wound closure at Caesarean section in black-skinned women. Int Sch Res Not. 2014;2014(807937):4–7.
18. Bruns TB, Worthington JM. Using tissue adhesive for wound repair: a practical guide to Dermabond. Am Fam Physician J. 2000;61(5):1383–8.
19. Bayat A, Walter JM, Bock O, Mrowietz U, Ollier WER, Ferguson MWJ. Genetic susceptibility to keloid disease: Mutation screening of the TGFß3 gene. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58(7):914–21.
20. Glass DA. Current Understanding of the Genetic Causes of Keloid Formation. J Investig Dermatology Symp Proc. 2017;18(2):S50–3.
21. He Y, Deng Z, Alghamdi M, Lu L, Fear MW, He L. From genetics to epigenetics: new insights into keloid scarring. Cell Prolif. 2017;50(2):1–8.
22. Tsai C-H, Ogawa R. Keloid research: current status and future directions. Scars, Burn Heal. 2019;5:1–8.
23. Simela T, Rivers DA, Simela A. Keloids and Hypertrophic Scars: A Review of Risk Factors, Pathophysiology, Prevention, Management, and Treatments in Dermatology and Surgical Practice. J Adv Med Med Res. 2018;25(3):1–6.
24. Zide MF, Epker BN. An alternate elective neck incision. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993 Oct;51(10):1071-5
25. J.Regan Thomas, Stephen Prendiville, Update in scar revision, Facial Plast Surg Clin,Volume 10, Issue 1, 2002, Pages103-111, ISSN 1064-7406,
26. Mustoe TA, Kloeters O. A randomized, controlled trial to determine the efficacy of paper tape in preventing hypertrophic scar formation in surgical incisions that traverse langer’s skin tension lines: Discussion. Vol. 116, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2005. p. 1657–8.
27. Levine, Elie MD; Degutis, Linda PhD; Pruzinsky, Thomas PhD; Shin, Joseph MD; Persing, John A. MD. Quality of Life and Facial Trauma: Psychological and Body Image Effects. Annals of Plastic Surgery 54(5):p 502-510, May 2005. |
28. John. A.G. Gibson, Edward Ackling, Jonathan I. Bisson, Thomas D. Dobbs, Iain S. Whitaker,
The association of affective disorders and facial scarring: Systematic review and meta-analysis,
Journal of Affective Disorders, Volume 239, 2018, Pages 1-10,
29. Eng J. Radiology Sample Size Estimation : How Many Individuals Should Be Studied ? J Radiol. 2003;(227):309–13.
30. Consorti F, Mancuso R, Piccolo A, Pretore E, Antonaci A. Quality of scar after total thyroidectomy: a single blinded randomized trial comparing octyl-cyanoacrylate and subcuticular absorbable suture. ISRN Surg. 2013;2013:1–6.
31. Amin M, Glynn F, Timon C. Randomized trial of tissue adhesive vs staples in thyroidectomy integrating patient satisfaction and Manchester score. Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2009;140(5):703–8.
32. Teoh LY, Chong SS, Hoh SY, Teoh MS, Ng KL. A comparison of aesthetic outcome between tissue adhesive and subcuticular suture in thyroidectomy wound closure in a multiracial country: A randomized controlled trial. Asian J Surg. 2019;42(5):634–40.
33. Rao V, D′Souza C, Kumar S, Kumar A. Comparative Study of thyroidectomy wound closure using tissue glue versus subcuticular suture. Thyroid Res Pract. 2016;13(3):115–8.
34. Soni A, Narula R, Kumar A, Parmar M, Sahore M, Chandel M. Comparing cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive and conventional subcuticular skin sutures for maxillofacial incisions - A prospective randomized trial considering closure time, wound morbidity, and cosmetic outcome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(12):2152.e1-2152.e8.
35. Jones C, Ho W, Samy M, Boom S, Lam W. Comparison of glues, sutures, and other commercially available methods of skin closure: A review of literature. Med Res Arch. 2017;5(7):1–11.
36. MacKeen AD, Schuster M, Berghella V. Suture versus staples for skin closure after cesarean: A metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(5):621.e1-621.e10.
37. Man SY, Wong EML, Ng YC, Lau PF, Chan MS, Lopez V, et al. Cost-consequence analysis comparing 2-Octyl cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive and suture for closure of simple lacerations: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;53(2):189–97.
38. MacKeen AD, Schuster M, Berghella V. Suture versus staples for skin closure after cesarean: A metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 May 1;212(5): 621.e1-621.e10.
39. Dowson, Charlotte C. Gilliam, Andrew D, William J. Lobo, Dileep N. Beckingham, Ian J. A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing n-Butyl Cyanoacrylate Tissue Adhesive (LiquiBand) With Sutures for Skin Closure After Laparoscopic General Surgical Procedures. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech vol 16 (3): p 146-150, June 2006.
40. Brown JK 1, Campbell BT, Drongowski RA, Alderman AK, Geiger JD, Teitelbaum DH, Quinn J, Coran AG, Hirschl RB. J, A prospective, randomized comparison of skin adhesive and subcuticular suture for closure of pediatric hernia incisions: cost and cosmetic considerations. Pediatr Surg, 01 Jul 2009, 44(7):1418-1422
41. Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Piccinini A, Grammatica A, Molteni G, Spaggiari A, DI Matteo S, Tassi S, Ghidini A, Izzo L, Gioacchini FM, Marchioni D, DI Saverio S, Presutti L. Aesthetic comparison between synthetic glue and subcuticular sutures in thyroid and parathyroid surgery: a single-blinded randomised clinical trial. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2014 Dec;34(6):406-11
42. Ridgway DM, Mahmood F, Moore L, Bramley D, Moore PJ. A blinded, randomised, controlled trial of stapled versus tissue glue closure of neck surgery incisions. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007 Apr;89(3):242-6
43. Matin SF. Prospective randomized trial of skin adhesive versus sutures for closure of 217 laparoscopic port-site incisions. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196(6):845–53.
44. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Gottardi A, Cherubino M, Uccella S, Valdatta L. Cosmetic outcomes of various skin closure methods following cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jul;203(1): 36.e1-8.
45. Ikeako, L. C., Iloghalu, E. I., Dim, C. C., Adiuku-Brown, A. C., Ezegwui, H. U., & Oranusi, C. K. (2016). Comparing Subcuticular Sutures versus Percutaneous Staples for Skin Closure after Caesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Study. Br J Med Med Res 2016; 18(4):1-9
46. Figueroa D, Jauk VC, Szychowski JM, Garner R, Biggio JR, Andrews WW, et al. Surgical Staples Compared with Subcuticular Suture for Skin Closure After Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(1):33–8.
47. Hiremath S, Kailas KC, Vinay BM. Comparison of the Incidence of post-operative wound Infection between skin Staples and Conventional Sutures in abdominal skin closures. IJSS J Surg. 2016;2(72):31–
48. Romero IL, Silva CB, Mimica LMJ, Soong KH, Hida RY. Antibacterial properties of cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive : Does the polymerization reaction play a role ? Indian J Opthalmology. 2009;57(5):341–4.
49. Kaderi M, Metgud R, Gharat M, Naik P, Ajbani J, Naik P, et al. In-vitro evaluation of antibacterial potential of cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives for intraoral wound closure. J Dent Mater Tech. 2017;6(4):163–9.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Abdulahi Ademola Ogundele, Suleiman Abdul Rasheed, Amole Olushola Ibiyinka, Efunkoya Akinwale Adeyemi, Omeje Kelvin Uchenna
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Open Access Statement
- We became fully Open Access since January 2023.
- Our new and archived materials are available free of charge on open basis and under a Creative Commons license as stated below.
Copyright statement
Copyright © 1999 The authors. This work, Nigerian Dental Journal by Nigerian Dental Association is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
