{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02254428341384863, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017713365539452495, 'mean_word_length': 5.309644670050761, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Skin closure of laparotomy wounds: absorbable subcuticular sutures vs. non-absorbable interrupted sutures.

In a five year period (1984-1988) in the department of obstetrics and gynaecology of the University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital, Ilorin, 304 laparotomy patients whose skin incisions were closed with the traditional method of interrupted non-absorbable sutures or with absorbable subcuticular sutures were analysed. Out of these 304 patients, 164 had non-absorbable skin sutures while 140 had absorbable subcuticular sutures. The results of the two methods of skin closure were compared immediately on discharge, at 6 weeks and at 6 months after the operation. The appearance of the wounds and scar were better in the absorbable subcuticular group than in the non-absorbable interrupted group. The differences between the two groups were statistically significant in the cross-scar formation, Keloid/hypertrophic scar formation, period of hospitalisation and the acceptance rate. Subcuticular skin closure had the advantages of short stay in hospital, non stitch removal, better scar formation and being more acceptable to patients. There was no significant difference in the age between the two groups. All the patients were Africans.