•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Introduction: Incidences of thyroid tumors are increasing followed by the rising of thyroidectomy and incidence of surgical scar. Precise subdermal approximation with an absorbable suture material that provides prolonged support to the wound has been found to reduce scar formation.

Objectives: To compare post-thyroidectomy scar outcomes between Polydioxanone (PDS) and Polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) in subdermal sutures.

Methods: A total of 32 participants undergoing thyroidectomy were divided into 2 groups with 16 patients in each group at Thammasat University Hospital from February 10th to November 30th, 2019. In Group1, Polydioxanone 4-0 was used for subdermal layer suture, whereas, in Group2, Polyglactin 910 4-0 was used. Nylon 5-0 was used for epidermal suture in both groups. Post-surgical scar outcomes were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was evaluated by The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) at 12 weeks postoperatively.

Results: Scar quality comparison showed no statistically significant difference in VSS between the two groups (p = 0.423, 0.677, 0.478) using the independent t-test. However, a subunit analysis of VSS revealed a significant difference in the vascularity parameter (p = 0.046) at the 2-week follow-up. The patient satisfaction evaluation according to POSAS of the group with Polydioxanone was higher than Polyglactin910, but without significant difference (p value = 0.121).

Conclusion: Using Polydioxanone and Polyglactin 910 in the subdermal layer suture resulted in similar appearing scars at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks post thyroidectomy. Therefore, surgeons may consider choosing the type of suture according to their preference and familiarity with the material in conjunction with using meticulous techniques to prevent scar formation.

References

1. Smith-Bindman R, Lebda P, Feldstein VA, Sellami D, Goldstein RB, Brasic N, Jin C, Kornak J. Risk of thyroid cancer based on thyroid ultrasound imaging characteristics. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2013;173(19):1788. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9245.

2. National Cancer Institute. Thyroid cancer. SEER Cancer Statistics Review. Updated 2024. (Accessed February 15, 2024) Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/thyro.html.

3. Rojanamatin J, Ukranun W, Supaattagorn P, Chiawiriyabunya I, et al. Cancer in Thailand. Vol. X, 2016-2018. Bangkok; 2021.

4. Elliot D, Mahaffey PJ. The stretched scar: the benefit of prolonged dermal support. Br J Plast Surg. 1989;42(1):74-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0007-1226(89)90117-3.

5. Chantarasak ND, Milner RH. A comparison of scar quality in wounds closed under tension with PGA (Dexon) and Polydioxanone (PDS). Br J Plast Surg. 1989;42(6):687-91. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1226(89)90082-9.

6. David deLemos MMS, Allan B Wolfson M. Closure of skin wounds with sutures. uptodate. Nov 2014.

7. Reuther M, Watson D. Scar revision techniques—pearls and pitfalls. Facial Plast Surg. 2012;28(05):487-91. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1325642.

8. Hochberg J, Meyer KM, Marion MD. Suture choice and other methods of skin closure. Surg Clin North Am. 2009;89(3):627-41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2009.03.001.

9. Greenwald D, Shumway S, Albear P, Gottlieb L. Mechanical comparison of 10 suture materials before and after in vivo incubation. J Surg Res. 1994;56(4): 372-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1006/jsre.1994.1058.

10. Gupta D, Sharma U, Chauhan S, Sahu SA. Improved outcomes of scar revision with the use of polydioxanone suture in comparison to polyglactin 910: A randomized controlled trial. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(8):1159-63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.03.021.

11. Guyuron B, Vaughan C. Comparison of polydioxanone and polyglactin 910 in intradermal repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98(5):817-20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199610000-00010.

12. Nguyen T, Feldstein S, Shumaker P, Krakowski A. A review of scar assessment scales. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2015;34(1):28-36. Available from: https://doi.org/10.12788/j.sder.2015.0125.

13. Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, Levinson H. A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty. 2010;10:e43. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2890387/.

14. Nordström RE, Nordström RM. Absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures to prevent postoperative stretching of wound area. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;78(2):186-90. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3725965/.

15. Regan T, Lawrence N. Comparison of poliglecaprone-25 and polyglactin-910 in cutaneous surgery. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39(9):1340-4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/dsu.12265.

16. Carrière ME, Kwa KAA, de Haas LEM, et al. Systematic review on the content of outcome measurement instruments on scar quality. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(9):e2424. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000002424.

17. Torre GC, De Negri A, Rovida S, Ansaldo GC, Gasparini C, Mattioli FP. [The use of different suture materials in thyroid surgery. A statistical evaluation of the immediate and long-term results]. Minerva Chir. 1992;47(13-14):1169-75.

Download

Share

COinS