Dataset Information

N-Butyl-2-cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (Histoacryl) vs. subcuticular sutures for skin closure of Pfannenstiel incisions following cesarean delivery.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Tissue adhesives are now routinely used for skin closure in various surgeries. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NBCA) tissue adhesive in cesarean delivery by comparing it with the safety and efficacy of subcuticular suture closure. METHODS AND FINDINGS:A retrospective chart review was undertaken of all patients who underwent cesarean delivery via Pfannenstiel skin incision. During the study period, a total of 209 patients had NBCA (Histoacryl®) closure and 208 patients had suture closure. Wound complications and Vancouver scar scale (VSS) scores were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS:There were no significant differences between the two groups in indications for cesarean deliveries or number of previous cesarean deliveries. Incidences of wound disruption and infection were also similar between the two closure groups (p = 0.322 and 0.997, respectively). The rate of wound complications was 3.4% in the NBCA group and 5.3% in the suture group. All complications healed uneventfully with topical antibiotics or closure strips. VSS scores at 6-8 weeks after operation were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.858). These results were corroborated by propensity score-matching analysis. CONCLUSIONS:NBCA may be a useful skin closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions after cesarean delivery.

SUBMITTER: Kwon JY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6157826 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

n-Butyl-2-cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (Histoacryl) vs. subcuticular sutures for skin closure of Pfannenstiel incisions following cesarean delivery.

Kwon Ji Young JY Yun Hang Goo HG Park In Yang IY

PloS one 20180914 9

<h4>Background</h4>Tissue adhesives are now routinely used for skin closure in various surgeries. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NBCA) tissue adhesive in cesarean delivery by comparing it with the safety and efficacy of subcuticular suture closure.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>A retrospective chart review was undertaken of all patients who underwent cesarean delivery via Pfannenstiel skin incision. During the study period, a total of 209 patients ...[more]

PMID: 30216337

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough applying adhesive strips to a wound closure has been shown to have outcomes equivalent to those with cuticular suturing, it is unknown whether adhesive strips provide additional benefit compared with dermal suturing alone.ObjectiveTo determine whether the addition of adhesive strips to a wound closed with buried interrupted subcuticular sutures improves outcomes following wound closure.Design, setting, and participantsA prospective, randomized split-wound intervention was conducted between November 14, 2013, and May 16, 2014, in patients who underwent cutaneous surgical procedures at the University of California, Davis, outpatient dermatology clinic. Fifty-seven patients 18 years or older with postoperative defects of at least 3 cm, resulting from either Mohs micrographic surgical procedures or surgical excision, were screened for participation. Nine patients were excluded and 48 were enrolled.InterventionsHalf of each wound was randomized to receive buried interrupted subcuticular sutures and overlying adhesive strips and the other half received buried interrupted subcuticular sutures only.Main outcomes and measuresAt 3 months' follow-up, each patient and 2 blinded observers evaluated the wound using the Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale.ResultsThe total mean (SD) Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale score for observers for the side that received a combination of adhesive strips and buried interrupted subcuticular suturing (12.3 [4.8]) and the side that received sutures only (12.9 [6.3]) did not differ significantly at 3 months (P = .32). There was no significant difference in the total patient assessment scale score between the combination closure (14.0 [7.6]) and sutures only (14.7 [7.6]) sides at 3 months (P = .39). There was also no significant difference between the 2 closure methods in terms of mean (SD) scar width (both methods: 1.1 [0.8] mm, P = .89) at follow-up.Conclusions and relevanceCombination closure with adhesive strips and buried interrupted subcuticular suturing was not significantly associated with improved overall scar assessment compared with buried interrupted subcuticular suturing alone when evaluated by blinded observers or the patients themselves. Our results do not support the use of adhesive strips as a means to improve cosmetic outcomes or reduce scar width.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01979497.

Project description:BackgroundSkin closure techniques during minimally-invasive gynecologic surgery is largely based on surgeon preference. The optimum technique would theoretically be safe, rapid, inexpensive, and result in good cosmetic appearance. Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (Dermabond) may be a comparable and safe option for port site closure as compared with subcuticular suture. In this randomized clinical trial, we hypothesized that operative time for skin closure would be less than subcuticular suture during robotic urogynecologic procedures.AimTo compare skin closure during robotic urogynecologic surgeries for tissue adhesives and subcuticular suture.MethodsFifty female subjects > 18 years of age undergoing robotic urogynecologic procedures were randomized to have port site closure with either cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (n = 25) or subcuticular suture (n = 25). All procedures and postoperative evaluations were performed by the same board certified Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgeon. Incisional closure time was recorded. Each subject was followed for 12-wk postoperatively. Incision cosmesis was evaluated using the Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale.ResultsA total of 47 subjects (cyanoacrylate group, n = 23; suture group, n = 24) completed the 12-wk postoperative evaluation. Closure time was significantly less (P < 0.0005) using cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (5.4 ± 2.0 min) than subcuticular suture (24.9 ± 5.6 min). Cosmesis scores were significantly higher in the cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive group than subcuticular suture (P = 0.025). No differences were found between bleeding, infection, or dehiscence (P = 1.00, P = 0.609, P = 0.234, respectively). No statistical demographical differences existed between the two study arms.ConclusionOur study supported our original hypothesis that cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive for port site closure during robotic urogynecolgic procedures uses less time than with subcuticular suture. Our study also supports that tissue adhesive is comparable to cosmetic outcome while not jeopardizing rates of bleeding, infection, or dehiscence.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of staples versus sutures in wound closure after orthopaedic surgery.DesignMeta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, CINAHL, AMED, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched, in addition to the grey literature, in all languages from 1950 to September 2009. Additional studies were identified from cited references. Selection criteria Two authors independently assessed papers for eligibility. Included studies were randomised and non-randomised controlled trials that compared the use of staples with suture material for wound closure after orthopaedic surgery procedures. All studies were included, and publications were not excluded because of poor methodological quality. Review methods Two authors independently reviewed studies for methodological quality and extracted data from each paper. Final data for analysis were collated through consensus. The primary outcome measure was the assessment of superficial wound infection after wound closure with staples compared with sutures. Relative risk and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled with a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with I(2) and chi(2) statistical test.ResultsSix papers, which included 683 wounds, were identified; 332 patients underwent suture closure and 351 staple closure. The risk of developing a superficial wound infection after orthopaedic procedures was over three times greater after staple closure than suture closure (relative risk 3.83, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 10.68; P=0.01). On subgroup analysis of hip surgery alone, the risk of developing a wound infection was four times greater after staple closure than suture closure (4.79, 1.24 to 18.47; P=0.02). There was no significant difference between sutures and staples in the development of inflammation, discharge, dehiscence, necrosis, and allergic reaction. The included studies had several major methodological limitations, including the recruitment of small, underpowered cohorts, poorly randomising patients, and not blinding assessors to the allocated methods of wound closure. Only one study had acceptable methodological quality.ConclusionsAfter orthopaedic surgery, there is a significantly higher risk of developing a wound infection when the wound is closed with staples rather than sutures. This risk is specifically greater in patients who undergo hip surgery. The use of staples for closing hip or knee surgery wounds after orthopaedic procedures cannot be recommended, though the evidence comes from studies with substantial methodological limitations. Though we advise orthopaedic surgeons to reconsider their use of staples for wound closure, definitive randomised trials are still needed to assess this research question.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cyanoacrylate topical adhesives and fast absorbing gut sutures are increasingly utilized by dermatologic surgeons as they provide satisfactory surgical outcomes while eliminating an additional patient visit for suture removal. To date, no head-to-head studies have compared the wound healing characteristics of these epidermal closure techniques in the repair of facial wounds after Mohs micrographic surgery. OBJECTIVE:To compare the cosmetic outcome of epidermal closure by cyanoacrylate topical adhesive with fast absorbing gut suture in linear repairs of the face following Mohs micrographic surgery. METHODS:Fourteen patients with wound length greater than 3cm who underwent Mohs micrographic surgery for nonmelanoma skin cancer of the face were enrolled in this randomized right-left comparative study. Following placement of dermal sutures, half of the wound was randomly selected for closure with cyanoacrylate and the contralateral side with fast absorbing gut suture. Using photographs from the three-month postoperative visit, six blinded individuals rated the overall cosmetic outcome. RESULTS:The present study shows no significant difference in cosmetic outcomes between cyanoacrylate and fast absorbing gut suture for closure of linear facial wounds resulting from Mohs micrographic surgery. Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive may not be as effective in achieving optimal cosmesis for wounds on the forehead or of longer repair lengths. The majority of patients did not have a preference for wound closure techniques, but when a preference was given, cyanoacrylate was significantly favored over sutures. CONCLUSION:Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive and fast absorbing gut suture both result in comparable aesthetic outcomes for epidermal closure of linear facial wounds following Mohs micrographic surgery. Consideration should be given to factors such as need for eversion, hemostasis, and wound tension when selecting an epidermal wound closure method. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT01298167, http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01298167).

Dataset Information

N-Butyl-2-cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (Histoacryl) vs. subcuticular sutures for skin closure of Pfannenstiel incisions following cesarean delivery.

Publications

n-Butyl-2-cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (Histoacryl) vs. subcuticular sutures for skin closure of Pfannenstiel incisions following cesarean delivery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets