The aim of this study was to compare the aesthetic and functional efficacies of n-butyl cyanoacrylate and 3/0 rapid absorbable polyglactin 910 sutures in cutaneous repair during episiotomy. This study involved 52 cases of patients who had spontaneous vaginal delivery and episiotomy. The cases were randomized among to the type of cutaneous repair during their episiotomy. The perineal skin was repaired by taping with n-butyl cyanoacrylate (group 1) or by suturing with subcuticular 3/0 rapid absorbable polyglactin 910 suture (group 2). These two groups of patients were compared in terms of duration of repair, postpartum pain, healing and cosmetic outcomes, and dyspareunia at 48 hours and 6 weeks postpartum. The incidence of episiotomy skin dehiscence was lower in group 2 than group 1 but it was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The average visual analog score of group 1 was statistically significantly lower at 48 hours postpartum (1.40 ± 0.50 vs. 3.44 ± 0.93, p < 0.01) and at 6 weeks (1.12 ± 0.72 vs. 2.07 ± 0.82, p < 0.01) compared with that of group 2. Also, the count of paracetamol pills used in the first 48 hours was significantly lower in the tissue glue group (1.97 ± 0.93 vs. 2.67 ± 1.21, p < 0.05). Dyspareunia incidences in the first coitus following vaginal delivery showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Similarly, the mean Vancouver scar score showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The duration of operation was shorter for group 1 than for group 2 (0.81 ± 0.62 vs. 2.12 ± 0.33, p < 0.001). The efficacy of using n-butyl cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives versus 3/0 rapid absorbable polyglactin 910 sutures for cutaneous episiotomy repair was similar. However, taping with tissue adhesive has the advantages of fast application and a painless postpartum period.
Cite this article
Comparison of the aesthetic and functional efficacy of subcuticular running closure (3/0 rapid absorbable 910 polyglactin) with N-BUTYL cyanoacrylate in episiotomy repair
1 Departments of Obstetric and Gynecology, Karadeniz Technical University, School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey
2 Visitor fellow, Unit of IVF, Departments of Obstetric and Gynecology, Karadeniz Technical University, School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey
Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 47(5), 660–663; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog.2020.05.2060
Submitted: 20 February 2020 | Accepted: 6 July 2020 | Published: 15 October 2020