Surgical Skin Closure, Staples vs Sub-cu

Yesterday I posted about Zika virus and how it is dangerous to neural tissue, especially for a fetus. This Zika problem will be with us for a couple of years until we can get a handle on it. I've seen pictures of the "war room" at the CDC where the epidemiologists have their daily meetings. I think the CDC is in Atlanta but it might be located at least partially near Washington DC.

Today a patient came in for her PP visit and we discussed her surgical closing technique. I had a doctor covering my practice who is a very skillful and caring physician. The patient needed a C-Section and I wasn't on.

My covering doc closed her skin incision with cosmetic subcuticular dis-solvable stitches.  So my patient has had the skin closed both ways now. First with staples, second with sub-cu.  And she now has a strong preference.

I know that the staples are a bit more work, and patients are worried about the removal. The removal is usually almost painless as the staples slide ride out once they are unbent.

Why are the staples beneficial?

-They are completely removable.
-They are very smooth and shiny, so no germs can get a hold of them.
-They never break down and fail their job of holding the skin
-When they are gone, they are utterly gone, leaving nothing behind to dissolve.
-When they are gone there is skin touching skin and nothing else in between. This is far more comfortable, softer, and smoother.

Why don't people like staples?

They feel and look unsightly while they are in. And they have to be removed.

In my opinion staples just do a better job and are worth the extra work.

The science does not show a preference between between staples and subcu dissolvable sutures. There have been a number of randomized trials. Obviously the trial cannot be blinded because the doc doing the stitching can see what they are doing. I suppose the incision can be evaluated later by someone who is blinded as to the closing technique.

In any case the studies showed no difference in the quality of the skin incision outcome. Of note, though, the studies that I read were done in academic medical centers where the infection and complication rates were far higher than a private community hospital. The academic centers infection rates were about 8 times higher than my hospitals. This surgical complication rate is a reflection of the socio-economic stress of poverty, the higher workload of the staff, and the riskier patient mix. I doubt if the less experienced staff has anything to do with it, but it remains possible. It is possible that the older facilities have less modern infection control technologies, such us laminar flow air handling in the operating room.

I think that if that same study were done in a place like my hospital, there is possibly a different outcome.

In my experience the staples provide a better outcome. Once they are removed they provide a far more comfortable and smoother incision.

Every once in awhile a patient will pick a doctor based on their known closure technique. I would like everyone to know that I will do whatever technique they want. I will give them my advice and then honor their wishes. Hopefully that will satisfy the needs of those who don't like the idea of staples. I am perfectly qualified to do cosmetic sub cu. I studied 6 weeks of cosmetic surgery at the Cook County Hospital in Chicago Illinois. That was a great time for me. I learned a lot. And I have been doing surgery every since.

So if you don't want staples, then I will do the sub cu. But if you want the best, then ask your surgeon if they can do metal removable staples. (The dissolvable staples are more like the sub cu).