Systematic review of absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions

Table 1 Characteristics of included trials

Ref.	Year	Country	Age in years	Male:female	Duration of follow up	Operative procedure
Dørflinger et al[32]
AS	1983	Denmark	64 (11-83)	27:2	6 mo	Inguinal and femoral hernia repair
NAS			64 (19-85)	21:8
Foster et al[33]
AS	1977	United Kingdom	NA	NA	1 mo	Appendicectomy
NAS
Glough et al[34]						Laparotomy
AS	1975	United Kingdom	NA	Mixed groups of males and females	4 wk	Inguinal and femoral hernia repair
NAS
Harimoto et al[35]
AS	2011	Japan	68 ± 10	37:25	30 d	Hepatectomy
NAS			67 ± 12	41:22
Kotaluoto et al[36]
AS	2012	Finland	40.6 (18-88)	45:45	3 wk	Appendicectomy
NAS			40.5 (18-83)	63:32
Lundblad et al[37]
AS	1989	Norway	NA	NA	NA	Appendicectomy
NAS						Inguinal hernia repair
Pauniaho et al[38]
AS	2010	Finland	12.7 (4-17)	57:43	1 wk	Appendicectomy
NAS			12.7 (4-18)	54:44
Ralphs et al[39]
AS	1982	United Kingdom	NA	NA	18 mo	Inguinal hernia repair
NAS
Szabó et al[40]
AS	2002	Hungary	64.7 (23-87)	23:2	3 mo	Inguinal hernia repair
NAS			66.3 (25-86)	21:4
Tan et al[41]
AS	2008	Malaysia	30.8 ± 7.9	0:106	4 wk	Transverse suprapubic for benign gynaecological surgery or c-section
NAS			31.6 ± 6.9	0:107

AS: Absorbable suture; NAS: Non-absorbable suture; NA: Not available.

Table 2 Treatment protocol adopted in included trials

Ref.	Absorbable suture	Non-absorbable suture
Dørflinger et al[32]	Polyglycolic acid	Dacron just for aponeurotic layer
Foster et al[33]	Subcuticular Polyglycolic acid	Interrupted 00 nylon 1 cm apart
Glough et al[34]	Polyglycolic acid 3/0 straight needle	Silk 2/0 straight needle
Harimoto et al[35]	Polyglactin	Silk
Kotaluoto et al[36]	4/0 monofilament monocryl	4/0 interrupted Ethilon
Lundblad et al[37]	3/0 polyglycolic	4/0 monofilament nylon
Pauniaho et al[38]	4/0 polyglactin 910/370	4/0 braided nylon
Ralphs et al[39]	3/0 Dexon	5/0 nylon
Szabó et al[40]	Polyglactin 910/370	Monofilament nylon
Tan et al[41]	Monofilament poliglecaprone 25	Monofilament polypropylene

Table 3 Quality assessment of included trials

Ref.	Randomisation technique	Power calculations	Blinding	Intention-to-treat analysis	Concealment
Dørflinger et al[32]	Consecutive patients	No	Yes	No	Inadequate
Foster et al[33]	Consecutive patients	No	No	No	Inadequate
Glough et al[34]	Consecutive patients	No	No	No	Inadequate
Harimoto et al[35]	Sealed envelop	Yes	No	No	Adequate
Kotaluoto et al[36]	Consecutive patients	Yes	No	Yes	Inadequate
Lundblad et al[37]	Consecutive patients	No	No	No	Inadequate
Pauniaho et al[38]	Consecutive patients	Yes	No	No	Inadequate
Ralphs et al[39]	Consecutive patients	No	No	No	Inadequate
Szabó et al[40]	No	No	No	No	Inadequate
Tan et al[41]	Consecutive patients	Yes	No	Yes	Inadequate