Literature DB >> 28153666

Skin closure at cesarean delivery, glue vs subcuticular sutures: a randomized controlled trial.

Yair Daykan1, Maya Sharon-Weiner2, Yael Pasternak2, Keren Tzadikevitch-Geffen2, Ofer Markovitch2, Rivka Sukenik-Halevy3, Tal Biron-Shental2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal choice of skin closure at cesarean delivery has not yet been determined.
OBJECTIVE: This study compared wound complications and scar healing following cesarean delivery between 2 methods of skin closure: glue (Dermabond; Ethicon, Somerville, NJ) and monofilament (Monocryl; Ethicon) epidermal sutures. STUDY
DESIGN: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in which pregnant women undergoing a scheduled cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to skin (epidermis) closure with glue or with a monofilament synthetic suture. The subcutaneous tissue was sutured for all patients. Outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Scars were evaluated >8 weeks. Primary outcome measures were Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale scores. Secondary outcome measures were surgeon satisfaction, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization after the cesarean delivery, and complications of surgical site infection or wound disruption (hematoma or seroma). A sample of 104 women was needed to achieve a clinically significant effect with a power of 80%.
RESULTS: Demographic characteristics, patients' clinical background, prepregnancy body mass index, and subcutaneous thickness were similar in both groups. Length of surgery between the groups (37 ± 10 minutes for glue vs 39 ± 13 minutes for sutures, P = .515) was similar. Scores immediately after the wound closure were similar for both groups regarding surgeons' time estimate of closure (P = .181) and closure appearance (P = .082). Surgeons' satisfaction with the technique was significantly higher in the suture group (P = .003). No significant differences were found between the groups in blood loss, surgical site infection, length of postpartum hospitalization, or wound disruption. Glue and suture skin closure scores using Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale were similar 8 weeks after surgery, at P = .710 for patients and P = .568 for a physician observer.
CONCLUSION: Skin closure using glue or a monofilament synthetic suture had similar results. Both methods were shown to be safe and successful for skin closure after a scheduled cesarean delivery and, therefore, can be used based on surgeon and patient preferences.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28153666     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  5 in total

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

Authors:  Ji Young Kwon; Hang Goo Yun; In Yang Park
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Octyl-2-cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive without subcuticular suture for wound closure after total hip arthroplasty: a prospective observational study on thirty-two cases with controls for 3 months follow-up.

Authors:  Li-Shen Wang; Xin-Yu Wang; Hao-Tian Tu; Yi-Fan Huang; Xin Qi; Yu-Hang Gao
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 2.359

3.  Comparison of the effect of skin closure materials on skin closure during cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Ye Huang; Xinbo Yin; Junni Wei; Suhong Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 3.752

4.  Randomized clinical trial comparing skin closure with tissue adhesives vs subcuticular suture after robotic urogynecologic procedures.

Authors:  Sunetris Fluellen; Kyle Mackey; Karen Hagglund; Muhammad Faisal Aslam
Journal:  World J Methodol       Date:  2020-10-28

5.  The Case for Standardizing Cesarean Delivery Technique: Seeing the Forest for the Trees.

Authors:  Joshua D Dahlke; Hector Mendez-Figueroa; Lindsay Maggio; Jeffrey D Sperling; Suneet P Chauhan; Dwight J Rouse
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 7.623

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.