Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 109

1.

Skin closure in vascular neurosurgery: A prospective study on absorbable intradermal suture versus nonabsorbable suture.

Pereira JL, Vieira G Jr, de Albuquerque LA, Mendes Gde A, Salles LR, de Souza AF, Dellaretti M, de Sousa AA.

Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3:94. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.99941. Epub 2012 Aug 21.

2.

Continuous versus interrupted skin sutures for non-obstetric surgery.

Gurusamy KS, Toon CD, Allen VB, Davidson BR.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 14;(2):CD010365. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010365.pub2. Review.

PMID:
24526375
3.

Absorbable intradermal closure of elective craniotomy wounds.

Paolini S, Morace R, Lanzino G, Missori P, Nano G, Cantore G, Esposito V.

Neurosurgery. 2008 May;62(5 Suppl 2):ONS490-2; discussion ONS492. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000326039.08080.ed.

PMID:
18596533
4.

Absorbable Versus Nonabsorbable Sutures for Skin Closure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Xu B, Xu B, Wang L, Chen C, Yilmaz TU, Zheng W, He B.

Ann Plast Surg. 2016 May;76(5):598-606. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000418.

PMID:
25643187
5.
6.

Wound healing after open appendectomies in adult patients: a prospective, randomised trial comparing two methods of wound closure.

Kotaluoto S, Pauniaho SL, Helminen M, Kuokkanen H, Rantanen T.

World J Surg. 2012 Oct;36(10):2305-10. doi: 10.1007/s00268-012-1664-3.

PMID:
22669400
7.

Continuous absorbable intradermal sutures yield better cosmetic results than nonabsorbable interrupted sutures in open appendectomy wounds: a prospective, randomized trial.

Koskela A, Kotaluoto S, Kaartinen I, Pauniaho SL, Rantanen T, Kuokkanen H.

World J Surg. 2014 May;38(5):1044-50. doi: 10.1007/s00268-013-2396-8.

PMID:
24318410
8.

Performance comparison of nylon and an absorbable suture material (Polyglactin 910) in the closure of punch biopsy sites.

Gabel EA, Jimenez GP, Eaglstein WH, Kerdel FA, Falanga V.

Dermatol Surg. 2000 Aug;26(8):750-2; discussion 752-3.

PMID:
10940061
9.

Equal cosmetic outcomes with 5-0 poliglecaprone-25 versus 6-0 polypropylene for superficial closures.

Rosenzweig LB, Abdelmalek M, Ho J, Hruza GJ.

Dermatol Surg. 2010 Jul;36(7):1126-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2010.01594.x.

PMID:
20653727
10.

Intradermal absorbable sutures to close pilonidal sinus wounds: a safe closure method?

Milone M, Musella M, Maietta P, Bianco P, Taffuri C, Salvatore G, Milone F.

Surg Today. 2014 Sep;44(9):1638-42.

PMID:
24078028
11.

Skin staples versus intradermal wound closure following primary hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomised trial including 231 cases.

Buttaro MA, Quinteros M, Martorell G, Zanotti G, Comba F, Piccaluga F.

Hip Int. 2015 Nov-Dec;25(6):563-7. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000278. Epub 2015 Jun 27.

PMID:
26165360
12.

Aesthetic comparison of wound closure techniques in a porcine model.

Tritle NM, Haller JR, Gray SD.

Laryngoscope. 2001 Nov;111(11 Pt 1):1949-51.

PMID:
11801975
14.
15.

Comparative study of leg wound skin closure in coronary artery bypass graft operations.

Angelini GD, Butchart EG, Armistead SH, Breckenridge IM.

Thorax. 1984 Dec;39(12):942-5.

16.

Use of skin glue versus traditional wound closure methods in brain surgery: A prospective, randomized, controlled study.

Chibbaro S, Tacconi L.

J Clin Neurosci. 2009 Apr;16(4):535-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2008.08.004. Epub 2009 Feb 23.

PMID:
19231198
17.
18.

Skin closure in hip surgery: subcuticular versus transdermal. A prospective randomized study.

Sakka SA, Graham K, Abdulah A.

Acta Orthop Belg. 1995;61(4):331-6.

PMID:
8571773
19.
20.

A systematic review on the effectiveness of slowly-absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for abdominal fascial closure following laparotomy.

Sajid MS, Parampalli U, Baig MK, McFall MR.

Int J Surg. 2011;9(8):615-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.09.006. Epub 2011 Oct 30. Review.

Supplemental Content

Support Center