PubMed · 11281671
Absorbable versus non-absorbable suture in carpal tunnel decompression.
Abstract
This randomised prospective clinical study compared the use of an absorbable suture (subcuticular 4:0 polyglactin 910) and a non-absorbable suture (5:0 monofilament polypropylene) for elective carpal tunnel decompression wound closure. An increased perception of pain was reported by the patients in the polypropylene (Prolene) group. At the 6-week assessment, there was a higher level of residual wound inflammation in the polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) group.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Explore connections, maps & timelines
E Erel, P I Pleasance, O Ahmed, N B Hart. 2001. Absorbable versus non-absorbable suture in carpal tunnel decompression.. https://doi.org/10.1054/jhsb.2000.0545
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.