4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Effective Wound Closure With a New Two-Component Wound Closure Device (Prineo™) in Excisional Body-Contouring Surgery: Experience in Over 200 Procedures

Journal

AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 382-386

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-011-9819-4

Keywords

Body contouring; Wound closure; Wound dehiscence; Prineo (TM); Adverse reaction

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In excisional body-contouring surgery the surgeon is often confronted with time-consuming closure of long wounds. Recently, a new combination of a self-adhering mesh together with a liquid 2-octyl cyanoacrylate adhesive (Prineo (TM); Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, NJ, USA) has been introduced to replace intracutaneous running suture. An observational study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of the new wound closure device in excisional body-contouring procedures between January 2008 and November 2010. Wound characteristics were recorded in a prospectively maintained database. During the study period, 224 procedures in 180 patients were undertaken. Twenty-seven patients had two subsequent operations and four patients had three subsequent operations. Application of the new device was easy and safe and patient satisfaction with the results was generally high. However, intense local allergic reactions were seen in 4 patients (1.8%), which necessitated early removal and topical corticosteroid treatment. Prineo (TM) enables the surgeon to perform a quick and smooth skin closure, especially in long incisions frequently encountered in excisional body-contouring surgery. The application is fast and easy if basic guidelines are respected. Operating time is saved by eliminating the need for time-consuming intracutaneous running sutures. Removal is easy and painless for the patient. However, there is a potential for local allergic adverse effects of which the surgeon must be aware.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available