Effect of Modified Allgöwer–Donati Suture Technique on Wound Cosmetics in Spinal Surgery

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the efficacy of modified Allgöwer–Donati suture (MADS) technique on cosmetic outcomes compared with vertical mattress suture (VMS) technique in spinal surgery wounds. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at the First Hospital of Lanzhou University (Gansu, China) from September 2019 to August 2020. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, a VMS group and a MADS group, by staff not involved in the treatment using a computer‐based random number table program (no restrictions on age or sex). Both procedures were performed by the same group of physicians as well as assistants. All suture wounds were completed by the same person. The primary endpoint was the scar area, and the postoperative scar area was scored by the Patient and Observer Scar Scale Assessment (POSAS). The scar area was calculated by ImageJ software. The second outcome measure was wound complications, including poor wound healing, wound edge necrosis, and infection. The trial was recorded in the Chinese Clinical Trial Register on 18 August 2019 (ChiCTR1900024548). RESULTS: A total of 143 patients were included: 72 in the VMS group and 71 in the MADS group. There was no significant difference in their demographics in terms of age (49.71 ± 8.91 vs 50.15 ± 6.79 years, P = 0.737), sex (M/F, 30/41 vs 31/41, P = 0.923), suture time (3.39 ± 0.22 vs 3.47 ± 0.25 s/mm, P = 0.057), or body mass index (BMI, 23.88 ± 3.50 vs 24.05 ± 3.50, P = 0.765) for MADS to VMS. The postoperative scar area was compared between the two groups transversely on day 12, the MADS wound scars decreased by 58.95% (75,133.24/127,452.58). In the POSAS evaluation, after MADS treatment, surface area score decreased from 5 (4, 5) to 2 (2, 3) (P < 0.0001), observer's overall opinion from 5 (4, 5) to 3 (2, 3) (P < 0.0001), itching from 3 (3, 4) to 3 (2, 3) (P = 0.001), color from 4 (4, 5) to 3 (2–4) (P < 0.0001), stiffness 4 (3–4.75) to 3 (3, 4) (P < 0.0001), or thickness from 4 (3–5) to 4 (3, 4) (P = 0.004). In terms of overall opinion evaluation, the MADS showed a significant difference in observer's overall opinion to the VMS (5 (4, 5) vs 3 (2, 3), P < 0.0001) and in patient's overall opinion 5 (5, 6) to 3 (3, 4), (P < 0.0001). There was no significant statistical difference in poor wound healing (3 vs 0, P = 0.245), wound edge necrosis (3 vs 0, P = 0.245), and infection (1 vs 0, P = 1.000) with the MADS to the VMS. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that the MADS effectively reduced the surgical scar area to 58.95% with no additional adverse events compared with that of the VMS in spine surgery.