Objective: To compare various commonly used closure techniques and their es
thetic results. Also to look for differences in cost, time, and ease of use
among the methods. Design: A prospective comparison in a porcine skin mode
l with a blinded assessment of outcomes. Methods: Thirty 6-cm, full-thickne
ss skin incisions were made on the back of two domestic white swine. Underm
ining was accomplished, and buried simple, interrupted, absorbable, braided
(Polysorb, US Surgical) subdermal sutures were placed in a uniform fashion
in each wound. The skin was then closed using one of the following five me
thods: running subcuticular 4-0 nylon, running subcuticular 4-0 absorbable
monofilament (Biosyn, US Surgical), tissue glue (Dermabond, Ethicon), adhes
ive tape, or running subcuticular nylon with intradermal injection of hyalu
ronic acid. Nonabsorbable sutures and tape were removed on postoperative da
y 7, and photographs were taken at regular intervals during a 12-week heali
ng period. Biopsies were taken from wounds in each group at 2 weeks and 12
weeks for histologic comparison. Independent observers evaluated the photog
raphs, and an independent histologist evaluated the biopsies to look for di
fferences in inflammation and scar formation. The surgeons who performed th
e wound closure rated the ease of use and amount of time required for each
technique. Results: Adhesive tape closure was faster and easier to perform.
There were no significant differences among the adhesive tape, nylon, or a
bsorbable suture groups regarding cosmetic appearance throughout the study
period. The tissue glue wounds had more of a tendency to dehisce. Adhesive
tape is less expensive than the other methods when material costs and opera
ting room time are considered. Conclusion: Adhesive tape closure of surgica
l wounds is cosmetically acceptable, convenient, and saves both time and ma
terial costs. We recommend it as an alternative for closure of neck incisio
ns.