Suturing versus conservative management of lacerations of the hand: randomised controlled trial.

James Quinn, Steven Cummings, Michael Callaham, Karen Sellers
Author Information
  1. James Quinn: Division of Emergency Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94143-0208, USA. quinnj@medicine.ucsf.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the difference in clinical outcome between lacerations of the hand closed with sutures and those treated conservatively.
DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: Emergency department in a tertiary hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients presenting between 16 February and 30 November 2000 with uncomplicated lacerations of the hand (full thickness <2 cm; without tendon, joint, fracture, or nerve complications) who would normally require sutures. 154 patients were eligible, 58 refused, and 5 were missed; 91 patients with 95 lacerations were enrolled.
INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to suturing or conservative treatment.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was cosmetic appearance after three months, rated on a previously validated visual analogue scale. Duration of treatment, pain during treatment, patients' assessment of their outcome, and the time for patients to resume normal activities were also measured.
RESULTS: Participants treated with sutures and those treated conservatively did not differ significantly in the assessment of cosmetic appearance by independent blinded doctors after three months: 83 mm v 80 mm, (mean difference 3 (95% confidence interval -1 to 8) mm) on the visual analogue scale. The mean time to resume normal activities was the same in both groups (3.4 days). Patients treated conservatively had less pain (difference 18 (12 to 24) mm) and treatment time was 14 (10 to 18) min shorter.
CONCLUSION: Similar cosmetic and functional outcomes result from either conservative treatment or suturing of small uncomplicated lacerations of the hand, but conservative treatment is faster and less painful.

References

  1. Ann Emerg Med. 1995 May;25(5):675-85 [PMID: 7741347]
  2. N Engl J Med. 1999 Sep 2;341(10):738-46 [PMID: 10471461]
  3. Acad Emerg Med. 1998 Jun;5(6):583-6 [PMID: 9660284]
  4. N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 16;337(16):1142-8 [PMID: 9329936]
  5. Handchirurgie. 1977;9(1):7-10 [PMID: 873348]
  6. Surg Clin North Am. 1984 Aug;64(4):721-33 [PMID: 6382655]
  7. Am J Emerg Med. 1995 Mar;13(2):229-31 [PMID: 7893315]
  8. Acad Emerg Med. 1994 Sep-Oct;1(5):454-62 [PMID: 7614303]
  9. Acad Emerg Med. 1996 Apr;3(4):298-9 [PMID: 8881536]

Grants

  1. K23 AR002137/NIAMS NIH HHS
  2. K23 AR02137-02/NIAMS NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Esthetics
Follow-Up Studies
Hand Injuries
Humans
Pain Measurement
Suture Techniques
Treatment Outcome
Wound Healing

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0treatmentlacerationstreatedpatientsconservativemmdifferenceoutcomehandsuturesconservativelycosmetictimecontrolledtrialuncomplicatedParticipantsrandomisedsuturingappearancethreevisualanaloguescalepainassessmentresumenormalactivitiesmean3less18OBJECTIVE:assessclinicalclosedDESIGN:RandomisedSETTING:EmergencydepartmenttertiaryhospitalPARTICIPANTS:Consecutivepresenting16February30November2000fullthickness<2cmwithouttendonjointfracturenervecomplicationsnormallyrequire154eligible58refused5missed9195enrolledINTERVENTION:MAINOUTCOMEMEASURES:PrimarymonthsratedpreviouslyvalidatedDurationpatients'alsomeasuredRESULTS:differsignificantlyindependentblindeddoctorsmonths:83v8095%confidenceinterval-18groups4daysPatients12241410minshorterCONCLUSION:SimilarfunctionaloutcomesresulteithersmallfasterpainfulSuturingversusmanagementhand:

Similar Articles

Cited By