الفهرس 
SKIN CLOSURE DURING CAESAREAN SECTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 162 |  |  |
| | | from | 162 | | |
Abstract
Background: Surgical site infections (SSI) are a common complication after caesarean section and mainly responsible for increased maternal mortality, morbidity and dissatisfaction of patients. Surgical site infections were reported to occur in 5% after caesarean section. Several patient and surgical variables are associated with increased rate of SSI after caesarean delivery1. According to NICE guideline NG125 Evidence review for the effectiveness of closure materials and techniques in the prevention of surgical site infection published in April 2019, a very low to moderate quality evidence from up to 5 RCTs, including 2,497 people, could not differentiate length of stay, the number of people who experience SSI, superficial SSI, organ/space SSI or wound dehiscence between the use of absorbable or non-absorbable sutures for wound closure at 30 days after surgery2. It is not known which type of suture material is preferable for skin closure after caesarean section3.
Objective: To compare the effect of subcuticular skin closure with absorbable suture versus non-absorbable suture on the risk of wound infection and complications after caesarean section.
Study Design: A randomized controlled trial.
Methodology: A total of 200 women (100 in each group) undergoing cesarean section were randomised either to Group- A where absorbable suture, polyglactin910 (vicryl), 2/0 was employed for subcuticular closure of the skin while in Group-B, non-absorbable suture, polypropylene (Prolene), 2/0 was used. All patients were followed up weekly and the final assessment of wound infection was done after four weeks.
Place and Duration: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ain Shams University, Maternity Hospital, Cairo, Egypt from January 2023 to october2023.
Results: This study revealed no difference in surgical site infection rates between vicryl group and Prolene group (10% vs 13%) respectively with p-value (p=0.50).
Conclusion: this study concluded that no statistically significant difference was found between subcuticular skin closure with absorbable suture (vicryl) versus non-absorbable (Prolene) suture, on the risk of wound infection and complications after caesarean section.
Practical Implications: The results indicated clinical equivalence of Prolene® and Vicryl® sutures. Therefore, both the Prolene® and Vicryl® sutures can be safely used for subcuticular skin closure after caesarean section.