Comparison of Absorbable and Nonabsorbable Sutures in Columellar Incision Closure in Rhinoplasty and Their Effects to Postoperative Scar

Abstract

Open technique septorhinoplasty (SRP) provides better surgical control and stronger anatomical assessment; however, one of its biggest disadvantages is postoperative columellar scar. In this study, the authos aimed to compare the absorbable polyglactin 910 (PG) (Vicryl Rapide 6/0; Ethicon Inc.) and nonabsorbable polypropylene (PP) (Prolene 6/0; Ethicon Inc.) suture materials and their effects on the postoperative columellar scar. In this study, 89 patients (61 females and 28 males) who underwent primary open technique SRP were included; 42 patients were included in the PP group and 47 were included in the PG group. Sutures were removed in PP group on 7th postoperative day. Sutures were left to be absorbed in the PG group. Columellar scar was assessed with visual analog scale (VAS) subjectively and with the modified Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale (SBSES) objectively in 6th postoperative month. SBSES results in PG and PP groups were 3.88 ± 0.80 and 3.67 ± 0.80, respectively. There was no statistical significance between the two groups (p = 0.352). VAS results in PG and PP groups were 8.04 ± 0.91 and 7.71 ± 0.85, respectively. There was no statistical significance between the two groups (p = 0.200). No postoperative wound infection was seen in either of the groups. PG delivers good postoperative results in columellar scar. We recommend using PG for columellar incision closure since it provides less discomfort and anxiety for the patient, and less office time for the surgeon during the suture removal.

Keywords

columellar scar - septorhinoplasty - absorbable suture

• References

• 1 Baarsma EA. External septorhinoplasty. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1979; 224 (3-4): 169-176
• 2 Anderson JR, Johnson Jr CM, Adamson P. Open rhinoplasty: an assessment. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1982; 90 (02) 272-274
• 3 Serin GM, Polat S, Aksoy E, İnanlı S. Postoperative wound care regimen in open septorhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 2010; 21 (06) 1880-1881
• 4 Verim A, Duymuş R, Çalim ÖF. , et al. Effect of nose skin on the columellar incision scar in a Turkish population. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 149 (03) 438-444
• 5 Alinasab B, Haraldsson P-O. Rapid resorbable sutures are a favourable alternative to non-resorbable sutures in closing transcolumellar incision in rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2016; 40 (04) 449-452
• 6 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
• 7 Aderriotis D, Sàndor GK. Outcomes of irradiated polyglactin 910 Vicryl Rapide fast-absorbing suture in oral and scalp wounds. J Can Dent Assoc 1999; 65 (06) 345-347
• 8 MacFarlane RJ, Donnelly TD, Khan Y, Morapudi S, Waseem M, Fischer J. Clinical outcome and wound healing following carpal tunnel decompression: a comparison of two common suture materials. BioMed Res Int 2014; 2014: 270137
• 9 Holmström H, Luzi F. Open rhinoplasty without transcolumellar incision. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 97 (02) 321-326
• 10 Foda HM. External rhinoplasty for the Arabian nose: a columellar scar analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2004; 28 (05) 312-316
• 11 Aksu I, Alim H, Tellioğlu AT. Comparative columellar scar analysis between transverse and inverted-V incision in open rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008; 32 (04) 638-640
• 12 Bafaqeeh SA, Al-Qattan MM. Open rhinoplasty: columellar scar analysis in an Arabian population. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102 (04) 1226-1228 , discussion 1229
• 13 Adamson PA, Smith O, Tropper GJ. Incision and scar analysis in open (external) rhinoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990; 116 (06) 671-675
• 14 Choudhary S, Khanna S, Mantri R, Arora P, Jain R. Rapidly resorbable skin sutures: story retold!. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2017; 41 (02) 470-471