Comparison of the Efficacies of Vicryl Rapide and Prolene Sutures in Transcolumellar Incision.

Abstract

<b><br>Introduction:</b> Septorhinoplasty aims to enhance nasal function and appearance. This common but complex procedure has demonstrated advancements with both open and endonasal approaches. The selection of sutures can impact patient comfort and scar outcomes, presenting both advantages and disadvantages.</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> This study was conducted to compare the cosmetic outcomes of the use of absorbable polyglactin 910 (PG) (Vicryl Rapide 5/0; Ethicon Inc.) and nonabsorbable polypropylene (PP) (Prolene 5/0; Ethicon Inc.) in open septorhinoplasty in terms of surgical scarring.</br> <b><br>Methods:</b> The sample of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study consisted of 42 patients who underwent open septorhinoplasty. The patients were randomized into the vicryl rapide (n = 16) and prolene (n = 26) suture groups. The groups were comparatively evaluated by two surgeons in terms of surgical scarring, pigmentation, level difference, indentation, and general appearance based on patient photographs taken in the 2nd week, 6th weeks and 12th week post-op.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> The mean age of the vicryl rapide and prolene groups was 26.9 5.7 years and 24.6 3.9 years, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups in any of the parameters investigated within the scope of the study in postoperative week 2, 6, and 12 (P > 0.05). On the other hand, intragroup analyses revealed that suture scar significantly decreased in the vicryl rapide group in the 6th and 12th weeks compared to the 2nd week (P < 0.05), while no significant difference was observed in the prolene group in the suture scars in week 6 and 12 compared to week 2 (P > 0.05).</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> Inverted V trans-columellar incisions sutured with rapidly absorbable suture material resulted in significantly less suture discomfort and did not significantly increase the risk of postoperative infection compared to nonabsorbable suture material. However, there was no significant difference between the two suture materials in terms of scar appearance.</br&gt.