Date of Presentation
5-4-2023 12:00 AM
College
School of Osteopathic Medicine
Poster Abstract
Abstract: Introduction Both absorbable and non-absorbable sutures are routinely used for closure of arthroscopic portal incisions. However, current literature assessing patient satisfaction using either suture type in knee arthroscopic portal closure is limited.
Purpose/Hypothesis The purpose of this study is to evaluate patient outcomes and satisfaction following wound closure with absorbable (Monocryl) versus non-absorbable (Nylon) sutures during knee arthroscopy.
Study Design Randomized Controlled Trial (Level I) Methods Patients over 18 years undergoing primary knee arthroscopy were identified during procedure scheduling. Exclusion criteria included revision procedures, concomitant ligament reconstruction or meniscal repair surgery. Before surgery, enrolled patients were randomly assigned to undergo closure with either 3-0 Monocryl or 3-0 nylon sutures. Postoperative evaluation was performed at 2-, 6- and 12-weeks and included a Visual Analogue Cosmesis scale, a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, patient scar assessment, and customized questionnaire assessing scar satisfaction.
Results Two hundred seventy-four patients were included for analysis: 145 in the absorbable group and 129 in the non-absorbable group. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of age, sex, BMI, race, smoking status, or laterality of procedure. Patients in the non- absorbable group reported higher overall satisfaction ratings at week 6 follow-up (9.12 ± 1.85 vs. 8.44 ± 2.49, p=0.019) and week 12 follow-up (9.13 ± 1.76 vs. 8.54 ± 2.50, p=0.048). There was no difference in pain, swelling, itching, numbness, incisional pain, or burning at any time point. Patients in the non-absorbable group observed more skin discoloration at 2-week (3.00 ± 2.33 vs. 2.41 ± 1.80, p=0.026) and 6-week (3.74 ± 2.82 vs. 2.98 ± 2.45, p=0.032) follow-up with no significant difference at 12 weeks.
Conclusion Despite reporting worse skin discoloration at early follow up, patients receiving non-absorbable sutures reported higher overall satisfaction than patients receiving absorbable sutures. Given that there was no difference in pain, swelling, itching, numbness, incisional pain, or burning, it is possible that non-queried variables such as time spent with patients (possibly increased in the non-absorbable group due to the time spent removing sutures) or frustration with the delayed resorption of absorbable sutures led to this difference.
Keywords
Arthroscopy, Suture, Patient Satisfaction, Treatment Outcome
Disciplines
Medicine and Health Sciences | Surgery
Document Type
Poster
Included in
Patient Satisfaction with Sutures Used in Knee Arthroscopy Portal Closure: Randomized Control Trial
Abstract: Introduction Both absorbable and non-absorbable sutures are routinely used for closure of arthroscopic portal incisions. However, current literature assessing patient satisfaction using either suture type in knee arthroscopic portal closure is limited.
Purpose/Hypothesis The purpose of this study is to evaluate patient outcomes and satisfaction following wound closure with absorbable (Monocryl) versus non-absorbable (Nylon) sutures during knee arthroscopy.
Study Design Randomized Controlled Trial (Level I) Methods Patients over 18 years undergoing primary knee arthroscopy were identified during procedure scheduling. Exclusion criteria included revision procedures, concomitant ligament reconstruction or meniscal repair surgery. Before surgery, enrolled patients were randomly assigned to undergo closure with either 3-0 Monocryl or 3-0 nylon sutures. Postoperative evaluation was performed at 2-, 6- and 12-weeks and included a Visual Analogue Cosmesis scale, a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, patient scar assessment, and customized questionnaire assessing scar satisfaction.
Results Two hundred seventy-four patients were included for analysis: 145 in the absorbable group and 129 in the non-absorbable group. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of age, sex, BMI, race, smoking status, or laterality of procedure. Patients in the non- absorbable group reported higher overall satisfaction ratings at week 6 follow-up (9.12 ± 1.85 vs. 8.44 ± 2.49, p=0.019) and week 12 follow-up (9.13 ± 1.76 vs. 8.54 ± 2.50, p=0.048). There was no difference in pain, swelling, itching, numbness, incisional pain, or burning at any time point. Patients in the non-absorbable group observed more skin discoloration at 2-week (3.00 ± 2.33 vs. 2.41 ± 1.80, p=0.026) and 6-week (3.74 ± 2.82 vs. 2.98 ± 2.45, p=0.032) follow-up with no significant difference at 12 weeks.
Conclusion Despite reporting worse skin discoloration at early follow up, patients receiving non-absorbable sutures reported higher overall satisfaction than patients receiving absorbable sutures. Given that there was no difference in pain, swelling, itching, numbness, incisional pain, or burning, it is possible that non-queried variables such as time spent with patients (possibly increased in the non-absorbable group due to the time spent removing sutures) or frustration with the delayed resorption of absorbable sutures led to this difference.