Comparison of wound strength, histologic, and aesthetic outcomes after microsurgical versus conventional skin closure in a rat model

Katharine M. Hinchcliff, Timothy Orlowski, Hakan Orbay, Fawn Hogan, Kevin Grayson, David E Sahar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the healing, strength, and cosmetic outcome of linear incisions after repair with the naked eye, surgical loupes, or a surgical microscope. Two parallel incisions were made on the dorsal skin of Sprague–Dawley rats (n = 36) and the rats randomized into four groups. A single surgeon repaired the incisions using 5-0 poliglecaprone in a running subcuticular pattern using the naked eye (Group I), surgical loupes with 2.5× magnification (Group II), surgical microscope with 5–10× magnification (Group III), and 6-0 poliglecaprone with a surgical microscope (Group IV). Rats were sacrificed at 1, 3, and 6 weeks. At each time point, the tensile strength of each closure was assessed. Macroscopic outcomes were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and histology assessed by a blinded observer. Microscope closure took significantly longer than closure with the naked eye (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in tensile strength or VSS ratings between the closure methods at any of the time points. On histopathologic analysis, there were a greater number of inflammatory cells and fibroblasts in the 6-0 microscope closure group versus the naked eye closure group at week 3 (p ≤ 0.05). In conclusion, wound repair under magnification did not yield a significant difference in cosmesis or wound tensile strength, but did increase operative time. Moreover, there was a trend toward increased inflammation with microscope-assisted closures, perhaps due to the increased suture burden.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Esthetics
Tensile Strength
Skin
Wounds and Injuries
Cicatrix
Operative Time
Cosmetics
Running
Sutures
Histology
Fibroblasts
Cell Count
Inflammation

Keywords

  • microscope
  • rat model
  • Scar
  • scar aesthetics
  • scar strength

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Comparison of wound strength, histologic, and aesthetic outcomes after microsurgical versus conventional skin closure in a rat model. / Hinchcliff, Katharine M.; Orlowski, Timothy; Orbay, Hakan; Hogan, Fawn; Grayson, Kevin; Sahar, David E.

In: Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fdb69e692b564c50ae25f33fb9a8d3d9,
title = "Comparison of wound strength, histologic, and aesthetic outcomes after microsurgical versus conventional skin closure in a rat model",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to compare the healing, strength, and cosmetic outcome of linear incisions after repair with the naked eye, surgical loupes, or a surgical microscope. Two parallel incisions were made on the dorsal skin of Sprague–Dawley rats (n = 36) and the rats randomized into four groups. A single surgeon repaired the incisions using 5-0 poliglecaprone in a running subcuticular pattern using the naked eye (Group I), surgical loupes with 2.5× magnification (Group II), surgical microscope with 5–10× magnification (Group III), and 6-0 poliglecaprone with a surgical microscope (Group IV). Rats were sacrificed at 1, 3, and 6 weeks. At each time point, the tensile strength of each closure was assessed. Macroscopic outcomes were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and histology assessed by a blinded observer. Microscope closure took significantly longer than closure with the naked eye (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in tensile strength or VSS ratings between the closure methods at any of the time points. On histopathologic analysis, there were a greater number of inflammatory cells and fibroblasts in the 6-0 microscope closure group versus the naked eye closure group at week 3 (p ≤ 0.05). In conclusion, wound repair under magnification did not yield a significant difference in cosmesis or wound tensile strength, but did increase operative time. Moreover, there was a trend toward increased inflammation with microscope-assisted closures, perhaps due to the increased suture burden.",
keywords = "microscope, rat model, Scar, scar aesthetics, scar strength",
author = "Hinchcliff, {Katharine M.} and Timothy Orlowski and Hakan Orbay and Fawn Hogan and Kevin Grayson and Sahar, {David E}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/2000656X.2019.1647850",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery",
issn = "2000-656X",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of wound strength, histologic, and aesthetic outcomes after microsurgical versus conventional skin closure in a rat model

AU - Hinchcliff, Katharine M.

AU - Orlowski, Timothy

AU - Orbay, Hakan

AU - Hogan, Fawn

AU - Grayson, Kevin

AU - Sahar, David E

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - The purpose of this study was to compare the healing, strength, and cosmetic outcome of linear incisions after repair with the naked eye, surgical loupes, or a surgical microscope. Two parallel incisions were made on the dorsal skin of Sprague–Dawley rats (n = 36) and the rats randomized into four groups. A single surgeon repaired the incisions using 5-0 poliglecaprone in a running subcuticular pattern using the naked eye (Group I), surgical loupes with 2.5× magnification (Group II), surgical microscope with 5–10× magnification (Group III), and 6-0 poliglecaprone with a surgical microscope (Group IV). Rats were sacrificed at 1, 3, and 6 weeks. At each time point, the tensile strength of each closure was assessed. Macroscopic outcomes were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and histology assessed by a blinded observer. Microscope closure took significantly longer than closure with the naked eye (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in tensile strength or VSS ratings between the closure methods at any of the time points. On histopathologic analysis, there were a greater number of inflammatory cells and fibroblasts in the 6-0 microscope closure group versus the naked eye closure group at week 3 (p ≤ 0.05). In conclusion, wound repair under magnification did not yield a significant difference in cosmesis or wound tensile strength, but did increase operative time. Moreover, there was a trend toward increased inflammation with microscope-assisted closures, perhaps due to the increased suture burden.

AB - The purpose of this study was to compare the healing, strength, and cosmetic outcome of linear incisions after repair with the naked eye, surgical loupes, or a surgical microscope. Two parallel incisions were made on the dorsal skin of Sprague–Dawley rats (n = 36) and the rats randomized into four groups. A single surgeon repaired the incisions using 5-0 poliglecaprone in a running subcuticular pattern using the naked eye (Group I), surgical loupes with 2.5× magnification (Group II), surgical microscope with 5–10× magnification (Group III), and 6-0 poliglecaprone with a surgical microscope (Group IV). Rats were sacrificed at 1, 3, and 6 weeks. At each time point, the tensile strength of each closure was assessed. Macroscopic outcomes were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and histology assessed by a blinded observer. Microscope closure took significantly longer than closure with the naked eye (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in tensile strength or VSS ratings between the closure methods at any of the time points. On histopathologic analysis, there were a greater number of inflammatory cells and fibroblasts in the 6-0 microscope closure group versus the naked eye closure group at week 3 (p ≤ 0.05). In conclusion, wound repair under magnification did not yield a significant difference in cosmesis or wound tensile strength, but did increase operative time. Moreover, there was a trend toward increased inflammation with microscope-assisted closures, perhaps due to the increased suture burden.

KW - microscope

KW - rat model

KW - Scar

KW - scar aesthetics

KW - scar strength

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070307094&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85070307094&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/2000656X.2019.1647850

DO - 10.1080/2000656X.2019.1647850

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85070307094

JO - Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery

JF - Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery

SN - 2000-656X

ER -