NCT05281666

Suture Repair of Lacerations in the ED: Comparison Between Two Suture Materials

Suture Repair of Lacerations in the Emergency Department: Comparison Between Absorbable and Non-absorbable Suture Material

• Status: Terminated
• Phase: N/A
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 6 (actual)
• Sponsor: Kenneth Taylor, M.D. · Academic / Other
• Sex: All
• Age: 18 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

This study aims to determine whether the use of non-absorbable (i.e. nylon) versus absorbable (i.e. chromic gut) sutures in traumatic hand lacerations affects wound healing, patient perception, and development of complications.

Detailed description

There has been limited data published on suture type in traumatic hand wounds. The only study we found in our literature review was a retrospective study comparing vicryl vs. nylon suture and found no difference in scar appearance, tenderness, retraction, or complications as far as 6 months after repair (2). There have been no prospective studies on this topic. The theoretical advantage of absorbable suture for these wounds is they do not require suture removal, thereby removing the discomfort of suture removal as well potentially decreasing the burden of follow-up. At the Penn State Health Hershey Medical Center, either suture choice included in this study is considered standard of care and is routinely used. Selection as to whether absorbable or non-absorbable suture is used is based on the preference and discretion of the resident and attending surgeon involved in the patient care. As such, if a patient were to present to the emergency department with a forearm or hand laceration and hand surgery were consulted, regardless of whether the patient opts to participate in this research study, their laceration would be repaired with either absorbable or non-absorbable suture depending on provider preference and the patient would be scheduled follow-up. There have been multiple prospective clinical trials on suture type in the context of planned surgical incisions, specifically carpal tunnel release, with variable outcomes. One clinical trial looking at a total of 40 incisions found no difference in pain, tenderness, inflammation, or outcomes postoperatively (3). Certain clinical trials favored non-absorbable sutures, reporting a higher rate of infection (4) or inflammation (5) with vicryl suture as compared to non-braided, non-absorbable sutures. On the other hand, other clinical trials favored absorbable sutures, describing reduction in pain scores (6) and pain associated with absorbable suture removal in the setting of other equivalent outcomes (7). The purpose of the study is to evaluate the use of absorbable and non-absorbable suture material in hand lacerations repaired in the Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Emergency Department.

Conditions

• Laceration of Hand
• Laceration of Forearm

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
DEVICE	Absorbable Surgical Gut Suture material	Participants with lacerations below the level of the forearm that meet inclusion criteria and are consented and randomized to this group will undergo washout and laceration repair using absorbable surgical gut suture material. They will be sent home with antibiotics. They will be asked to return to the outpatient hand clinic at 2, 6, and 12 weeks follow-up. Their wound will be assessed by a single observer, utilizing the POSAS and VAS.
DEVICE	Non-absorbable Nylon Suture Material	Participants with lacerations below the level of the forearm that meet inclusion criteria and are consented and randomized to this group will undergo washout and laceration repair using non-absorbable nylon gut suture material. They will be sent home with antibiotics. They will be asked to return to the outpatient hand clinic at 2, 6, and 12 weeks follow-up. Their sutures will be removed at the 2-week follow-up visit. Their wound will be assessed by a single observer, utilizing the POSAS and VAS.

Timeline

• Start date: 2022-08-23
• Primary completion: 2022-12-20
• Completion: 2022-12-20
• First posted: 2022-03-16
• Last updated: 2026-03-17
• Results posted: 2026-03-17

Locations

1 site across 1 country: United States

Regulatory

• FDA-regulated device study