A comparison of absorbable and nonabsorbable suture materials for skin repair

This prospective clinical study was conducted to compare the outcome of elective surgical wound repair in the occipital region during rhytidectomy using absorbable and nonabsorbable suture materials. On an alternative basis, 6-0 polypropylene and 6-0 plain catgut were used to repair the incisions on the upper and lower half of the surgical wounds in 80 sites. These sites were then compared for stitch marks, erythema, hypertrophic scars, infection, and wound necrosis. This study revealed slightly visible stitch marks in 4 of 40 (10 percent) sites repaired with catgut and in 10 of 40 (25 percent) sites repaired with polypropylene material (p less than 0.10); however, this was not statistically significant. There were five incidences of suture-site erythema (12.5 percent) noted in the group of catgut repairs in comparison with three incidences (7.5 percent) in the group repaired using polypropylene. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in hypertrophic scarring or infection rate between these groups. The incidence of erythema following repair with catgut was higher, but this was also not statistically significant. Considering these findings, coupled with the avoidance of patient discomfort, suture removal, and time spared for the surgeon and staff when absorbable suture material is used, the superiority of plain catgut over nonabsorbable material becomes evident.