References
- Guo S, Dipietro LA. Factors affecting wound healing. J Dent Res 2010;89(03):219-229 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034509359125
- Braun TL, Maricevich RS. Soft tissue management in facial trauma. Semin Plast Surg 2017;31(02):73-79 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1601381
- Rose J, Tuma F. Sutures and Needles. StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020. Accessed September 1, 2022 at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539891/
- Fowler JR, Perkins TA, Buttaro BA, Truant AL. Bacteria adhere less to barbed monofilament than braided sutures in a contaminated wound model. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013;471(02):665-671 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2593-z
- Moy RL, Waldman B, Hein DW. A review of sutures and suturing techniques. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1992;18(09):785-795 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.1992.tb03036.x
- Fein JA, Zempsky WT, Cravero JPCommittee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine and Section on Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine American Academy of Pediatrics. Relief of pain and anxiety in pediatric patients in emergency medical systems. Pediatrics 2012;130(05):e1391-e1405 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2536
- Wade RG,Wormald JC, Figus A. Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after carpal tunnel decompression surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;2(02):CD011757
- Gillanders SL, Anderson S, Mellon L, Heskin L. A systematic review and meta-analysis: do absorbable or non-absorbable suture materials differ in cosmetic outcomes in patients requiring primary closure of facial wounds? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018;71(12):1682-1692 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.08.027
- Al-Mubarak L, Al-Haddab M. Cutaneous wound closure materials: an overview and update. J Cutan Aesthet Surg 2013;6(04):178-188 https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-2077.123395
- Fosko SW, Heap D. Surgical pearl: an economical means of skin closure with absorbable suture. J Am Acad Dermatol 1998;39(2 Pt 1):248-250 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0190-9622(98)70084-2
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DGPRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(04):264-269, W64 https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
- Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;10(10):ED000142
- Schiavo JH. PROSPERO: An international register of systematic review protocols. Med Ref Serv Q 2019;38(02):171-180 https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2019.1588072
- Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928
- Sullivan D, Chung KC, Eaves FF III, Rohrich RJ. The level of evidence pyramid: indicating levels of evidence in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery articles. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;128(01):311-314 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182195826
- Parell GJ, Becker GD. Comparison of absorbable with nonabsorbable sutures in closure of facial skin wounds. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2003;5(06):488-490 https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.5.6.488
- Karounis H, Gouin S, Eisman H, Chalut D, Pelletier H, Williams B. A randomized, controlled trial comparing long-term cosmetic outcomes of traumatic pediatric lacerations repaired with absorbable plain gut versus nonabsorbable nylon sutures. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11(07):730-735 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2004.tb00736.x
- Holger JS, Wandersee SC, Hale DB. Cosmetic outcomes of facial lacerations repaired with tissue-adhesive, absorbable, and nonabsorbable sutures. Am J Emerg Med 2004;22(04):254-257 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2004.02.009
- Rosenzweig LB, Abdelmalek M, Ho J, Hruza GJ. Equal cosmetic outcomes with 5-0 poliglecaprone-25 versus 6-0 polypropylene for superficial closures. Dermatol Surg 2010;36(07):1126-1129 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2010.01594.x
- Luck R, Tredway T, Gerard J, Eyal D, Krug L, Flood R. Comparison of cosmetic outcomes of absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures in pediatric facial lacerations. Pediatr Emerg Care 2013;29(06):691-695 https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0b013e3182948f26
- Eisen DB, Zhuang AR, Hasan A, Sharon VR, Bang H, Crispin MK. 5-0 Polypropylene versus 5-0 fast absorbing plain gut for cutaneous wound closure: a randomized evaluator blind trial. Arch Dermatol Res 2020;312(03):179-185 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-019-02009-5
- Erol O, Buyuklu F, Koycu A, Jafarov S, Gultekin G, Erbek SS. Comparison of rapid absorbable sutures with nonabsorbable sutures in closing transcolumellar incision in septorhinoplasty: short-term outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020;44(05):1759-1765 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01864-2
- Moran B, Humphrey S, Seal A, Berkowitz J, Zloty D. Photographic assessment of postsurgical facial scars epidermally sutured with rapidly absorbable polyglactin 910 or nylon: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2020;83(05):1395-1399 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2020.06.016
- Luck RP, Flood R, Eyal D, Saludades J, Hayes C, Gaughan J. Cosmetic outcomes of absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures in pediatric facial lacerations. Pediatr Emerg Care 2008;24(03):137-142 https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0b013e3181666f87
- Sajid MS, McFall MR, Whitehouse PA, Sains PS. Systematic review of absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions. World J Gastrointest Surg 2014;6(12):241-247 https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v6.i12.241
- Xu B, Xu B, Wang L, et al. Absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures for skin closure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Plast Surg 2016;76(05):598-606 https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000418