4.5 Article

Prospective randomised study to evaluate the use of DERMABOND ProPen (2-octylcyanoacrylate) in the closure of abdominal wounds versus closure with skin staples in patients undergoing elective colectomy

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
Volume 25, Issue 7, Pages 899-905

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-010-0929-2

Keywords

Dermabond; Colectomy; Wound closure; Skin staples; Cosmesis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Topical 2-octylcyanoacrylate tissue (OCA) adhesive has been used as an alternative to close wounds with a comparable cosmetic outcome. The use of 2-OCA in the closure of abdominal laparotomy wounds has not been thoroughly evaluated. Our aim was to compare 2-OCA with conventional skin stapling devices in colorectal surgery. A prospective randomised study was conducted in which 74 consecutive patients above the age of 21 undergoing open elective colectomies for benign or malignant indications were allocated to skin closure with 2-OCA or skin staples. Cosmetic outcome as assessed with the Hollander Cosmesis Scale with a single assessor, complication rates, and patient satisfaction were recorded at discharge (4-10POD) 2 weeks after discharge and then at 3 months. Of the 74 patients, 38 were randomised to skin staples and 36 to 2-OCA. There was no significant difference in cosmetic outcomes between the two groups as assessed with a visual analogue scale or the Hollander Cosmesis Scale but showed a trend to better cosmetic outcomes in the 2-OCA group. Patient satisfaction scores were higher but did not reach statistical significance. The time taken to close a wound with 2-OCA was significantly longer than with skin staples. There was no statistical difference in rates of wound infection. 2-OCA is a safe and effective means of skin closure in patients undergoing elective colectomies with a good and at least equivalent outcome to traditional methods of closure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available