Absorbable vs non‐absorbable sutures: Wound dehiscence
Absorbable showed no clear difference in wound dehiscence at last compared with non‐absorbable sutures (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Absorbable vs non‐absorbable sutures Wound dehiscence at last · patients undergoing a laparotomy Absorbable showed no clear difference in wound dehiscence at last compared with non‐absorbable sutures (moderate certainty). Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.78 [0.55, 1.1] | 34 studies · 9004 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.