Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture TechniqueNCT07639372
A Self-Controlled Clinical Study of Fast-Absorbable Versus Slow-Absorbable Sutures Applied in Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique
A study testing Intervention 1: 5-0 Slow-absorbable PDS suture and Intervention 2: 5-0 Fast-absorbable Vicryl suture in people with Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique, run by Zhenzhen Zhang at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
Hypertrophic scar formation after wound healing remains a clinical challenge in plastic surgery. Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique is currently the primary surgical option for preventing and reducing hypertrophic scarring.An ideal tension-relieving effect requires sustained support for 3 months postoperatively… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique
- What is being tested?
- Intervention 1: 5-0 Slow-absorbable PDS suture and Intervention 2: 5-0 Fast-absorbable Vicryl suture
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- 1 Mar 2026to Dec 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Incision length ≥ 5 cm;
- Clean, non-infected surgical wounds;
- Ability to provide written informed consent voluntarily;
- Scheduled for dermatologic surgery with intended linear wound closure;
- Able to complete required postoperative follow-up;
- No restriction on surgical site.
Who cannot join
- Incision length ≤ 5 cm;
- Infected or contaminated wounds;
- Cognitive impairment precluding provision of independent informed consent;
- Pregnant women;
- Any other conditions judged inappropriate for enrollment by investigators.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
China1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University
Lanzhou, Gansu, 730030
Zhenzhen Zhang, MM, +86 18153957828, 18153957828@163.com
About this study
Hypertrophic scar formation after wound healing remains a clinical challenge in plastic surgery. Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique is currently the primary surgical option for preventing and reducing hypertrophic scarring.An ideal tension-relieving effect requires sustained support for 3 months postoperatively to align with the natural recovery cycle of skin tissue tensile strength. Studies both domestically and internationally have confirmed that slow-absorbing sutures yield better scar improvement outcomes than fast-absorbing sutures; non-absorbable sutures carry a relatively significant risk of scar hyperplasia due to Existing domestic and international evidence confirms superior scar outcomes with slow-absorbing sutures; non-absorbable sutures tend to aggravate scar hyperplasia due to obvious foreign-body responses. Other studies have shown that there are no statistically significant differences in infection rate, wound healing and scar formation between absorbable and non-absorbable sutures for cutaneous closure, Nevertheless, absorbable sutures eliminate suture removal, relieve patients' anxiety and discomfort, and lead to superior patient satisfaction. To date, no self-controlled studies have directly verified the specific effects of absorbable sutures with disparate absorption rates on postoperative scar formation during super-tension relieving suturing.
Accordingly, this study conducted a randomized, wound-self-controlled, evaluator-blinded comparative efficacy trial. Within the same surgical incision, supertension-relieving sutures were performed using both fast-absorbing and slow-absorbing sutures to compare postoperative scar morphology and outcomes. This study is the first to investigate the impact of sutures with different absorption rates on scar formation in super-tension-relieving suturing.
Read the detailed description
This single-center, evaluator-blinded, split-incision self-controlled investigator-initiated clinical trial is performed in the Department of Plastic Surgery, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, aiming to compare postoperative scar formation between fast-absorbable and slow-absorbable sutures under ultra tension-reducing cosmetic closure. Hypertrophic scar remains a common troublesome complication after wound repair; adequate long-term dermal support is essential to reduce scar hyperplasia. Current clinical evidence regarding scar performance of different-speed absorbable sutures under ultra tension-releasing suture technique is inconsistent, and relevant split-wound self-controlled clinical evidence is lacking.
All eligible subjects receive equal bisection of a single linear surgical incision. Segment A is repaired with 5-0 polydioxanone (PDS, slow-absorbable suture), and Segment B uses 5-0 polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide, fast-absorbable suture). Subcutaneous tension fixation, dermal ultra tension-reducing backstitch and superficial 6-0 interrupted nylon skin closure are standardized identically across both wound segments; stitch spacing, cutting edge distance and surgical manipulation are unified to eliminate operative confounders. Postoperative wound dressing, dressing change timing and epidermal suture removal at 7-10 days follow uniform clinical routine.
Prespecified outpatient follow-up visits are scheduled at postoperative 1 week, 1 month and 3 months for scar measurement, standardized clinical photography and adverse event documentation. Two independent blinded assessors complete POSAS scoring for primary endpoint evaluation to avoid assessment bias. Collected adverse events include surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, hemorrhage, seroma, hematoma and suture foreign body reaction. Statistical analysis adopts intention-to-treat principle; paired t-test and McNemar's test are utilized for outcome comparison via SPSS 25.0 software.
No interim analysis or early stopping rules are set for this trial, and an independent Data Monitoring Committee is not established. All safety monitoring is undertaken by the study research team, with serious adverse events promptly reported to the institutional ethics committee. This research is supported by The Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province (Grant No. 26JRRA839).
- Conditions
- Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique
- Being tested
- Intervention 1: 5-0 Slow-absorbable PDS suture, Intervention 2: 5-0 Fast-absorbable Vicryl suture
- Keywords
- Hypertrophic scar, surgical incision healing, Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique
- Medical subject headings
- Cicatrix, Hypertrophic
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Intervention 1: 5-0 Slow-absorbable PDS sutureDevice
Intervention 1 5-0 slow-absorbable polydioxanone (PDS) suture applied to half of the surgical incision using standardized ultra tension-reducing closure technique.
Intervention 2: 5-0 Fast-absorbable Vicryl sutureDevice
Intervention 2 5-0 fast-absorbable polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) suture applied to the remaining half of the same incision using identical ultra tension-reducing closure technique.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Arm1: Slow-absorbable PDS for ultra tension-reducing closure | Experimental | Half of each patient's incision is repaired with 5-0 slow-absorbable PDS using standardized ultra tension-reducing suture technique. All intraoperative and postoperative care follows unified clinical protocols. Receives: Device: Intervention 1: 5-0 Slow-absorbable PDS suture |
| Arm2: Fast-absorbable Vicryl for identical ultra tension-reducing closure | Active comparator | The other half of the same incision is closed with 5-0 fast-absorbable Vicryl using identical ultra tension-reducing technique. All perioperative management is fully standardized. Receives: Device: Intervention 2: 5-0 Fast-absorbable Vicryl suture |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Primary Outcome Measure: Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) score at 3 months postoperatively
Scar outcomes are assessed by two independent blinded evaluators using POSAS. It includes 6 domains, each scored 1-10 (total 6-60). Lower scores indicate better scar quality.
Measured: 3 months postoperatively
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Jun 2026
- Study start1 Mar 2026
- Primary completionSep 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (14)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture TechniqueStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Model description
- This is a split-incision self-controlled single-group design. Each enrolled participant has one continuous surgical incision equally divided into two segments within the same wound. One segment is closed with slow-absorbable PDS suture, and the other segment is repaired with fast-absorbable polyglactin 910 suture under identical ultra tension-reducing suture technique. All other perioperative management is consistent across two wound segments to eliminate confounding variables. Outcome evaluators remain blinded to suture assignment during scar assessment.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Zhenzhen Zhang
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Zhenzhen Zhang, Lanzhou University Second Hospital
- Investigators
- Zhenzhen Zhang, MM, Principal investigator, Lanzhou University Second Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07639372
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2026A-333
- Other IDs
- 26JRRA839
- Status last verified
- Jun 2026
- First submitted
- 5 Jun 2026
- Last updated
- 10 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: The study will not share individual participant data (IPD) due to ethical considerations regarding patient privacy and the small sample size of this single-center study.
Publications
Lambrechts M, Nazari B, Dini A, O'Brien MJ, Heard WM, Savoie FH, You Z. Comparison of the cheese-wiring effects among three sutures used in rotator cuff repair. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2014 Jul;8(3):81-5. doi: 10.4103/0973-6042.140115.
PubMed 25258499Alabdulkarim A, Shilash OMB, Alanazi NF, Sawad MB, Alhusayni M, Alresheedi W, Alanazi S, Al Qurashi AA. Comparison of Incision Closure in Hand Plastic Surgery Using Non-absorbable Versus Absorbable Sutures: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 Jul;49(13):3858-3865. doi: 10.1007/s00266-024-04571-4. Epub 2025 Jan 9.
PubMed 39789189Balomenos DB, Gomicronuletsomicronu PG, Galatos AD. Comparison of Absorbable and Nonabsorbable Sutures for Intradermal Skin Closure in Dogs. Vet Sci. 2023 Feb 1;10(2):105. doi: 10.3390/vetsci10020105.
PubMed 36851409Erol O, Buyuklu F, Koycu A, Jafarov S, Gultekin G, Erbek SS. Comparison of Rapid Absorbable Sutures with Nonabsorbable Sutures in Closing Transcolumellar Incision in Septorhinoplasty: Short-term Outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2020 Oct;44(5):1759-1765. doi: 10.1007/s00266-020-01864-2. Epub 2020 Jul 22.
PubMed 32700009Moran B, Humphrey S, Seal A, Berkowitz J, Zloty D. Photographic assessment of postsurgical facial scars epidermally sutured with rapidly absorbable polyglactin 910 or nylon: A randomized clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Nov;83(5):1395-1399. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.06.016. Epub 2020 Jun 10.
PubMed 32534080Hamstra-Wright KL, Huxel Bliven KC, Bay RC, Aydemir B. Risk Factors for Plantar Fasciitis in Physically Active Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Health. 2021 May-Jun;13(3):296-303. doi: 10.1177/1941738120970976. Epub 2021 Feb 3.
PubMed 33530860Min P, Zhang S, Sinaki DG, Yao P, Hu F, Wang X, Zhou D, Chai J, Zhang Y. Using Zhang's supertension-relieving suture technique with slowly-absorbable barbed sutures in the management of pathological scars: a multicenter retrospective study. Burns Trauma. 2023 Jun 15;11:tkad026. doi: 10.1093/burnst/tkad026. eCollection 2023.
PubMed 37334139Wade RG, Wormald JC, Figus A. Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after carpal tunnel decompression surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 1;2(2):CD011757. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011757.pub2.
PubMed 29390170Kim J, Kang HJ, Kim BS, Kim YM, Kim HN, Park JY, Choi YR, Bat-Ulzii A, Cho J. Clinical Features and Treatment of Intra-Tendinous Suture Reaction Following Achilles Tendon Repair Using Nonabsorbable Suture Material: A Retrospective Case Series Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Oct 8;19(19):12897. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191912897.
PubMed 36232194Malhotra K, Bondje S, Sklavounos A, Mortada H, Khajuria A. Absorbable versus Nonabsorbable Sutures for Facial Skin Closure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical and Aesthetic Outcomes. Arch Plast Surg. 2024 Jun 19;51(4):386-396. doi: 10.1055/a-2318-1287. eCollection 2024 Jul.
PubMed 39034976Maki J, Mitoma T, Ooba H, Nakato H, Mishima S, Tani K, Eto E, Yamamoto D, Yamamoto R, Kai K, Tamada T, Akamatsu K, Kawanishi K, Masuyama H. Barbed vs conventional sutures for cesarean uterine scar defects: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2024 Sep;6(9):101431. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101431. Epub 2024 Jul 16.
PubMed 39019212Yoon MK, Liou VD, Gostimir M, McCoskey MM. Foreign body suture granuloma in canthal surgery: association with suture type. Orbit. 2025 Apr;44(2):185-189. doi: 10.1080/01676830.2024.2404678. Epub 2024 Sep 25.
PubMed 39319572Madden JW, Peacock EE Jr. Studies on the biology of collagen during wound healing. 3. Dynamic metabolism of scar collagen and remodeling of dermal wounds. Ann Surg. 1971 Sep;174(3):511-20. doi: 10.1097/00000658-197109000-00017. No abstract available.
PubMed 5111290Wang LZ, Ding JP, Yang MY, Chen B. Forty-five cases of chest keloids treated with subcutaneous super-tension-reduction suture combined with postoperative electron-beam irradiation. Dermatol Surg. 2014 Dec;40(12):1378-84. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000000163.
PubMed 25357171
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Self-Controlled Clinical Study of Fast-Absorbable Versus Slow-Absorbable Sutures Applied in Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07639372
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2026A-333
- Conditions
- Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique
- Keywords
- Hypertrophic scar, surgical incision healing, Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Zhenzhen ZhangUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Sep 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 10 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Hypertrophic scar formation after wound healing remains a clinical challenge in plastic surgery. Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique is currently the primary surgical option for preventing and reducing hypertrophic scarring.An ideal tension-relieving effect requires sustained support for 3 months postoperatively to align with the natural recovery cycle of skin tissue tensile strength. Studies both domestically and internationally have confirmed that slow-absorbing sutures yield better scar improvement outcomes than fast-absorbing sutures; non-absorbable sutures carry a relatively significant risk of scar hyperplasia due to Existing domestic and international evidence confirms superior scar outcomes with slow-absorbing sutures; non-absorbable sutures tend to aggravate scar hyperplasia due to obvious foreign-body responses. Other studies have shown that there are no statistically significant differences in infection rate, wound healing and scar formation between absorbable and non-absorbable sutures for cutaneous closure, Nevertheless, absorbable sutures eliminate suture removal, relieve patients' anxiety and discomfort, and lead to superior patient satisfaction. To date, no self-controlled studies have directly verified the specific effects of absorbable sutures with disparate absorption rates on postoperative scar formation during super-tension relieving suturing.
Accordingly, this study conducted a randomized, wound-self-controlled, evaluator-blinded comparative efficacy trial. Within the same surgical incision, supertension-relieving sutures were performed using both fast-absorbing and slow-absorbing sutures to compare postoperative scar morphology and outcomes. This study is the first to investigate the impact of sutures with different absorption rates on scar formation in super-tension-relieving suturing.
Detailed description
This single-center, evaluator-blinded, split-incision self-controlled investigator-initiated clinical trial is performed in the Department of Plastic Surgery, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, aiming to compare postoperative scar formation between fast-absorbable and slow-absorbable sutures under ultra tension-reducing cosmetic closure. Hypertrophic scar remains a common troublesome complication after wound repair; adequate long-term dermal support is essential to reduce scar hyperplasia. Current clinical evidence regarding scar performance of different-speed absorbable sutures under ultra tension-releasing suture technique is inconsistent, and relevant split-wound self-controlled clinical evidence is lacking.
All eligible subjects receive equal bisection of a single linear surgical incision. Segment A is repaired with 5-0 polydioxanone (PDS, slow-absorbable suture), and Segment B uses 5-0 polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide, fast-absorbable suture). Subcutaneous tension fixation, dermal ultra tension-reducing backstitch and superficial 6-0 interrupted nylon skin closure are standardized identically across both wound segments; stitch spacing, cutting edge distance and surgical manipulation are unified to eliminate operative confounders. Postoperative wound dressing, dressing change timing and epidermal suture removal at 7-10 days follow uniform clinical routine.
Prespecified outpatient follow-up visits are scheduled at postoperative 1 week, 1 month and 3 months for scar measurement, standardized clinical photography and adverse event documentation. Two independent blinded assessors complete POSAS scoring for primary endpoint evaluation to avoid assessment bias. Collected adverse events include surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, hemorrhage, seroma, hematoma and suture foreign body reaction. Statistical analysis adopts intention-to-treat principle; paired t-test and McNemar's test are utilized for outcome comparison via SPSS 25.0 software.
No interim analysis or early stopping rules are set for this trial, and an independent Data Monitoring Committee is not established. All safety monitoring is undertaken by the study research team, with serious adverse events promptly reported to the institutional ethics committee. This research is supported by The Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province (Grant No. 26JRRA839).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- This is a split-incision self-controlled single-group design. Each enrolled participant has one continuous surgical incision equally divided into two segments within the same wound. One segment is closed with slow-absorbable PDS suture, and the other segment is repaired with fast-absorbable polyglactin 910 suture under identical ultra tension-reducing suture technique. All other perioperative management is consistent across two wound segments to eliminate confounding variables. Outcome evaluators remain blinded to suture assignment during scar assessment.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Arm1: Slow-absorbable PDS for ultra tension-reducing closure | Experimental | Device: Intervention 1: 5-0 Slow-absorbable PDS sutureHalf of each patient's incision is repaired with 5-0 slow-absorbable PDS using standardized ultra tension-reducing suture technique. All intraoperative and postoperative care follows unified clinical protocols. |
| Arm2: Fast-absorbable Vicryl for identical ultra tension-reducing closure | Active comparator | Device: Intervention 2: 5-0 Fast-absorbable Vicryl sutureThe other half of the same incision is closed with 5-0 fast-absorbable Vicryl using identical ultra tension-reducing technique. All perioperative management is fully standardized. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Incision length ≥ 5 cm;
- Clean, non-infected surgical wounds;
- Ability to provide written informed consent voluntarily;
- Scheduled for dermatologic surgery with intended linear wound closure;
- Able to complete required postoperative follow-up;
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Incision length ≤ 5 cm;
- Infected or contaminated wounds;
- Cognitive impairment precluding provision of independent informed consent;
- Pregnant women;
- Any other conditions judged inappropriate for enrollment by investigators.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention 1: 5-0 Slow-absorbable PDS sutureIntervention 1 5-0 slow-absorbable polydioxanone (PDS) suture applied to half of the surgical incision using standardized ultra tension-reducing closure technique. | Device | Arm1: Slow-absorbable PDS for ultra tension-reducing closure |
| Intervention 2: 5-0 Fast-absorbable Vicryl sutureIntervention 2 5-0 fast-absorbable polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) suture applied to the remaining half of the same incision using identical ultra tension-reducing closure technique. | Device | Arm2: Fast-absorbable Vicryl for identical ultra tension-reducing closure |
Primary outcome
Primary Outcome Measure: Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) score at 3 months postoperatively
Time frame: 3 months postoperatively
Scar outcomes are assessed by two independent blinded evaluators using POSAS. It includes 6 domains, each scored 1-10 (total 6-60). Lower scores indicate better scar quality.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Jun 2026.
- Background: PubMed 25258499Lambrechts M, Nazari B, Dini A, O'Brien MJ, Heard WM, Savoie FH, You Z. Comparison of the cheese-wiring effects among three sutures used in rotator cuff repair. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2014 Jul;8(3):81-5. doi: 10.4103/0973-6042.140115.
- Background: PubMed 39789189Alabdulkarim A, Shilash OMB, Alanazi NF, Sawad MB, Alhusayni M, Alresheedi W, Alanazi S, Al Qurashi AA. Comparison of Incision Closure in Hand Plastic Surgery Using Non-absorbable Versus Absorbable Sutures: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 Jul;49(13):3858-3865. doi: 10.1007/s00266-024-04571-4. Epub 2025 Jan 9.
- Background: PubMed 36851409Balomenos DB, Gomicronuletsomicronu PG, Galatos AD. Comparison of Absorbable and Nonabsorbable Sutures for Intradermal Skin Closure in Dogs. Vet Sci. 2023 Feb 1;10(2):105. doi: 10.3390/vetsci10020105.
- Background: PubMed 32700009Erol O, Buyuklu F, Koycu A, Jafarov S, Gultekin G, Erbek SS. Comparison of Rapid Absorbable Sutures with Nonabsorbable Sutures in Closing Transcolumellar Incision in Septorhinoplasty: Short-term Outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2020 Oct;44(5):1759-1765. doi: 10.1007/s00266-020-01864-2. Epub 2020 Jul 22.
- Background: PubMed 32534080Moran B, Humphrey S, Seal A, Berkowitz J, Zloty D. Photographic assessment of postsurgical facial scars epidermally sutured with rapidly absorbable polyglactin 910 or nylon: A randomized clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Nov;83(5):1395-1399. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.06.016. Epub 2020 Jun 10.
- Background: PubMed 33530860Hamstra-Wright KL, Huxel Bliven KC, Bay RC, Aydemir B. Risk Factors for Plantar Fasciitis in Physically Active Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Health. 2021 May-Jun;13(3):296-303. doi: 10.1177/1941738120970976. Epub 2021 Feb 3.
- Background: PubMed 37334139Min P, Zhang S, Sinaki DG, Yao P, Hu F, Wang X, Zhou D, Chai J, Zhang Y. Using Zhang's supertension-relieving suture technique with slowly-absorbable barbed sutures in the management of pathological scars: a multicenter retrospective study. Burns Trauma. 2023 Jun 15;11:tkad026. doi: 10.1093/burnst/tkad026. eCollection 2023.
- Background: PubMed 29390170Wade RG, Wormald JC, Figus A. Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after carpal tunnel decompression surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 1;2(2):CD011757. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011757.pub2.
- Background: PubMed 36232194Kim J, Kang HJ, Kim BS, Kim YM, Kim HN, Park JY, Choi YR, Bat-Ulzii A, Cho J. Clinical Features and Treatment of Intra-Tendinous Suture Reaction Following Achilles Tendon Repair Using Nonabsorbable Suture Material: A Retrospective Case Series Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Oct 8;19(19):12897. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191912897.
- Background: PubMed 39034976Malhotra K, Bondje S, Sklavounos A, Mortada H, Khajuria A. Absorbable versus Nonabsorbable Sutures for Facial Skin Closure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical and Aesthetic Outcomes. Arch Plast Surg. 2024 Jun 19;51(4):386-396. doi: 10.1055/a-2318-1287. eCollection 2024 Jul.
- Background: PubMed 39019212Maki J, Mitoma T, Ooba H, Nakato H, Mishima S, Tani K, Eto E, Yamamoto D, Yamamoto R, Kai K, Tamada T, Akamatsu K, Kawanishi K, Masuyama H. Barbed vs conventional sutures for cesarean uterine scar defects: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2024 Sep;6(9):101431. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101431. Epub 2024 Jul 16.
- Background: PubMed 39319572Yoon MK, Liou VD, Gostimir M, McCoskey MM. Foreign body suture granuloma in canthal surgery: association with suture type. Orbit. 2025 Apr;44(2):185-189. doi: 10.1080/01676830.2024.2404678. Epub 2024 Sep 25.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. The study will not share individual participant data (IPD) due to ethical considerations regarding patient privacy and the small sample size of this single-center study.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Zhenzhen Zhang, MM principal investigator
Lanzhou University Second Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Intervention 1: 5-0 Slow-absorbable PDS suture and Intervention 2: 5-0 Fast-absorbable Vicryl suture in people with Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique, run by Zhenzhen Zhang at 1 site in China.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Jun 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in China. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Zhenzhen Zhang, MM (+86 18153957828, 18153957828@163.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Primary Outcome Measure: Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) score at 3 months postoperatively (time frame: 3 months postoperatively). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07639372, which also lists 14 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 10 Jun 2026.