| Literature DB >> 32922017 |
Xiangpeng Kong1, Minzhi Yang1,2, Renwen Guo1, Jiying Chen1, Wei Chai1, Yan Wang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study focusing on the tissue adhesive in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was rare. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and economic costs of tissue adhesive when acting as the adjunct to standard incision closure in TKA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 2019 to November 2019, we prospectively enrolled the consecutive patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral TKA in our institute. The allocation using the tissue adhesive was done after the subcuticular suture in right knee first and another method was applied in the left knee automatically. The patients' demographics, length of stay (LOS), times of dressing changes and incision-related cost, range of motion (ROM), incision-related complications and incision evaluation scores were recorded.Entities:
Keywords: dressing change; incision closure; tissue adhesive; total knee arthroplasty
Year: 2020 PMID: 32922017 PMCID: PMC7457845 DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S260007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag ISSN: 1176-6336 Impact factor: 2.423
Suture Material for Incision Closure in Different Layers
| Layer | Tissue Adhesive Group | Control Group | Suture Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joint capsule | 2–0 absorbable knotless barbed suture (Quill, Surgical Specialties Corporation, IL, USA); 2–0 Ethibond non-absorbable suture W4843 (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) | Same | Continuous suture |
| Subcutaneous tissue | 4–0 coated Vicryl Plus antibacterial suture (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) | Same | Interrupted suture |
| Subcuticular tissue | 4–0 absorbable knotless barbed suture (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) | Same | Continuous suture |
| Skin | HISTOACRYL® tissue adhesive (B.Braun, Melsungen, German) | None | – |
Figure 1The appearances of bilateral incisions in the operating room (right: tissue adhesive group; left: control group).
Patient Scar Assessment Score (PSAS)
| * | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Is the scar painful? | ||||||||||
| Is the scar itching? | ||||||||||
| # | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| Is the color of the scar different? | ||||||||||
| Is the scar more stiff? | ||||||||||
| Is the thickness of the scar different? | ||||||||||
| Is the scar irregular? | ||||||||||
| Total score Patient Scar Score | ||||||||||
Notes: *0 means “no, no complains”,10 means “yes, more imaginable”. #0 means “no, as normal skin”,10 means “yes, very different”.
Vancouver Scar Score (VSS)
| Score | Vascularity | Pliability | Height | Pigmentation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Normal | Normal | Flat | Normal |
| 1 | Pink | Supple | < 2mm | Hypopigmentation |
| 2 | Red | Yielding | 2–4mm | Mixed |
| 3 | Purple | Firm | > 4mm | Hyperpigmentation |
| 4 | – | Banding | – | – |
Figure 2Flow chart of patient enrollment in this prospective study.
The Demographic Data in the Thirty-Two Patients
| Demographics | Data |
|---|---|
| Age (median, IQR) (years) | 58, 7 |
| Male: Female | 12: 20 |
| BMI (mean±SD) (kg/m2) | 26.34±3.11 (21.30–32.62) |
| ASA grade (Ⅰ:Ⅱ) | 2:30 |
| Postoperative LOS (mean, IQR) (days) | 4.5, 2 |
Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; BMI, body mess index; SD, standard deviation; LOS, length of stay.
Comparisons of Closure Time, Dressing Change, Pain, Incision Evaluation Scores and Complications Between Two Groups
| Evaluation Index | Tissue Adhesive Group | Standard Skin Closure Group | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dressing change (median, IQR) | 1, 0 | 2.5, 2 | 0.000 |
| Incision-related costs (mean±SD) (US dollar) | 242.39±10.12 | 221.83±13.55 | 0.423 |
| Incision-related complications | 1/31 | 4/28 | 0.355 |
| PSAS (mean±SD) | 22.83±9.48 | 30.57±9.54 | 0.003 |
| VSS (mean±SD) | 5.13±1.16 | 5.77±1.16 | 0.737 |
| Delayed discharge | 1/31 | 4/28 | 0.355 |
| ROM (°, mean±SD) | 99.19±8.12 | 100.48±7.93 | 0.183 |
Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation; PSAS, patient scar assessment score; VSS, Vancouver scar score; ROM, range of motion.
Figure 3The preference distribution for incision closure in the thirty-two patients.
Figure 4The appearances of bilateral incisions at postoperative two month (right: tissue adhesive group; left: control group).