Systematic review of absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions

Table 1 Characteristics of included trials

Ref.	Year	Country	Age in years	Male:female	Duration of follow up	Operative procedure
Dørflinger et al[32]
AS	1983	Denmark	64 (11-83)	27:2	6 mo	Inguinal and femoral hernia repair
NAS			64 (19-85)	21:8
Foster et al[33]
AS	1977	United Kingdom	NA	NA	1 mo	Appendicectomy
NAS
Glough et al[34]						Laparotomy
AS	1975	United Kingdom	NA	Mixed groups of males and females	4 wk	Inguinal and femoral hernia repair
NAS
Harimoto et al[35]
AS	2011	Japan	68 ± 10	37:25	30 d	Hepatectomy
NAS			67 ± 12	41:22
Kotaluoto et al[36]
AS	2012	Finland	40.6 (18-88)	45:45	3 wk	Appendicectomy
NAS			40.5 (18-83)	63:32
Lundblad et al[37]
AS	1989	Norway	NA	NA	NA	Appendicectomy
NAS						Inguinal hernia repair
Pauniaho et al[38]
AS	2010	Finland	12.7 (4-17)	57:43	1 wk	Appendicectomy
NAS			12.7 (4-18)	54:44
Ralphs et al[39]
AS	1982	United Kingdom	NA	NA	18 mo	Inguinal hernia repair
NAS
Szabó et al[40]
AS	2002	Hungary	64.7 (23-87)	23:2	3 mo	Inguinal hernia repair
NAS			66.3 (25-86)	21:4
Tan et al[41]
AS	2008	Malaysia	30.8 ± 7.9	0:106	4 wk	Transverse suprapubic for benign gynaecological surgery or c-section
NAS			31.6 ± 6.9	0:107

AS: Absorbable suture; NAS: Non-absorbable suture; NA: Not available.