Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures in open rhinoplasty: a comparative analysis of columellar scarring
MetadataShow full item record
CitationBozan, Aykut MD*; Dizdar, Denizhan MD† Absorbable Versus Non-Absorbable Sutures in Open Rhinoplasty, Journal of Craniofacial Surgery: January 05, 2021 - Volume Publish Ahead of Print - Issue - doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007355
Introduction: Open rhinoplasty involving columellar incision has gained popularity since the 1930s. Many surgical incision techniques have been employed to obtain better results in terms of postoperative scarring. This study evaluated and compared the results of absorbable and non-absorbable sutures used in open technique rhinoplasty, assessed scar properties regardless of the techniques used, from the perspectives of patients and surgeons. Objective: This study evaluated and compared the results of absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures used in open technique rhinoplasty from the perspectives of patients and surgeons. Material and methods: Study population included 70 patients who underwent primary open rhinoplasty between 2013 and 2018. Rhinoplasty Operations were performed in 2 different centers by a total of 2 rhinoplasty surgeons. Both surgeons used suture materials, which can be used for columellar closure, regardless of patients' skin characteristics. Columellar scars were assessed at an outpatient clinic at least 6 months postoperatively. Patients who could not come to the clinic were excluded from the study. Columellar Scars were assessed using the Turkish Patient Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire. Patients were also asked to complete a Scar Assessment Analysis Questionnaire at the outpatient clinic, and were photographed from the front, basal, and right and left oblique sides. Three surgeons, who were not part of the research team but routinely performed rhinoplasty, completed the Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire by examining patients in person at the clinic as well as their photographs. Results: Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire results; for the Vicryl group, surgeons ranked pigmentation of the scar as the best criterion (3.34 ± 0.97) and irregularity of the scar as the worst (3.82 ± 1.01). For the Prolene group, surgeons ranked irregularity as the best criterion (3.30 ± 0.97) and stiffness as the worst (3.54 ± 0.94). Although there was no statistically significant result between the two groups in the criteria, the mean scores of the Prolene group were less than the Vicryl group. (3.36 ± 0.46, 3.50 ± 0.65 respectively).Scar Assessment Analysis Questionnaire Results; patients in both the Vicryl and Prolene groups ranked pain as the least important factor (mean 2.9 ± 1.11 and 3.33 ± 1.35, respectively). The Prolene group scored lower than the Vcryl group in terms of overall scarring (3.49 ± 0.72, 3.66 ± 1.37, respectively, P > 0,05).