Comparison of wound strength, histologic, and aesthetic outcomes after microsurgical versus conventional skin closure...

The purpose of this study was to compare the healing, strength, and cosmetic outcome of linear incisions after repair with the naked eye, surgical loupes, or a surgical microscope. Two parallel incisions were made on the dorsal skin of Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 36) and the rats randomized into four groups. A single surgeon repaired the incisions using 5-0 poliglecaprone in a running subcuticular pattern using the naked eye (Group I), surgical loupes with 2.5× magnification (Group II), surgical microscope with 5-10× magnification (Group III), and 6-0 poliglecaprone with a surgical microscope (Group IV). Rats were sacrificed at 1, 3, and 6 weeks. At each time point, the tensile strength of each closure was assessed. Macroscopic outcomes were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and histology assessed by a blinded observer. Microscope closure took significantly longer than closure with the naked eye (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in tensile strength or VSS ratings between the closure methods at any of the time points. On histopathologic analysis, there were a greater number of inflammatory cells and fibroblasts in the 6-0 microscope closure group versus the naked eye closure group at week 3 (p ≤ 0.05). In conclusion, wound repair under magnification did not yield a significant difference in cosmesis or wound tensile strength, but did increase operative time. Moreover, there was a trend toward increased inflammation with microscope-assisted closures, perhaps due to the increased suture burden.