Comparison between liquid skin adhesive and wound closure strip for skin closure after subcuticular suturing in single-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a single-center retrospective study in Korea.

Kyeong Eui Kim, Yu Ra Jeon, Sung Uk Bae, Woon Kyung Jeong, Seong Kyu Baek
{"title":"Comparison between liquid skin adhesive and wound closure strip for skin closure after subcuticular suturing in single-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a single-center retrospective study in Korea.","authors":"Kyeong Eui Kim, Yu Ra Jeon, Sung Uk Bae, Woon Kyung Jeong, Seong Kyu Baek","doi":"10.7602/jmis.2024.27.1.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study was performed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of skin adhesives and to compare postoperative and cosmetic outcomes after wound closure in single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) between skin adhesives and steri-strips.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a single-center retrospective study. We included 22 and 47 patients in whom skin adhesive and steri-strips were used respectively, for skin closure after subcuticular suturing in SPLA between August 2014 and 2020. The patient scar assessment questionnaire (PSAQ) was completed postoperatively to assess postoperative cosmetic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On the postoperative day, patients in whom skin adhesive was used had significantly lower numeric rating scores than in whom steri-strips were used (2.8 ± 0.8 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8, <i>p</i> < 0.001). The frequency of analgesic administration within 24 hours and between 24 and 48 hours after surgery was significantly lower in the skin adhesive group compared to the wound closure strip group (1.4 ± 0.8 vs. 2.7 ± 1.2, <i>p</i> = 0.013 and 0.2 ± 0.4 vs. 0.7 ± 0.9, <i>p</i> = 0.002, respectively). In the PSAQ, \"satisfaction with appearance\" and \"satisfaction with symptoms\" subitem scores were significantly lower in patients in whom skin adhesive was used (11.3 ± 3.0 vs. 15.1 ± 4.5, <i>p</i> = 0.006 and 6.5 ± 1.8 vs. 9.5 ± 3.3, <i>p</i> = 0.003), whereas, \"appearance\" and \"consciousness\" subitems revealed no statistically significant differences between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Liquid skin adhesive closures seem to be safe and feasible and cause less postoperative pain, resulting in greater patient satisfaction with postoperative scars than wound closure strip closure after subcuticular suturing in SPLA.</p>","PeriodicalId":73832,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10961233/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2024.27.1.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of skin adhesives and to compare postoperative and cosmetic outcomes after wound closure in single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) between skin adhesives and steri-strips.

Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study. We included 22 and 47 patients in whom skin adhesive and steri-strips were used respectively, for skin closure after subcuticular suturing in SPLA between August 2014 and 2020. The patient scar assessment questionnaire (PSAQ) was completed postoperatively to assess postoperative cosmetic outcomes.

Results: On the postoperative day, patients in whom skin adhesive was used had significantly lower numeric rating scores than in whom steri-strips were used (2.8 ± 0.8 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8, p < 0.001). The frequency of analgesic administration within 24 hours and between 24 and 48 hours after surgery was significantly lower in the skin adhesive group compared to the wound closure strip group (1.4 ± 0.8 vs. 2.7 ± 1.2, p = 0.013 and 0.2 ± 0.4 vs. 0.7 ± 0.9, p = 0.002, respectively). In the PSAQ, "satisfaction with appearance" and "satisfaction with symptoms" subitem scores were significantly lower in patients in whom skin adhesive was used (11.3 ± 3.0 vs. 15.1 ± 4.5, p = 0.006 and 6.5 ± 1.8 vs. 9.5 ± 3.3, p = 0.003), whereas, "appearance" and "consciousness" subitems revealed no statistically significant differences between the groups.

Conclusion: Liquid skin adhesive closures seem to be safe and feasible and cause less postoperative pain, resulting in greater patient satisfaction with postoperative scars than wound closure strip closure after subcuticular suturing in SPLA.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术中皮下缝合后皮肤闭合用液体皮肤粘合剂和伤口闭合条的比较:韩国一项单中心回顾性研究。
目的:本研究旨在评估皮肤粘合剂的安全性和可行性,并比较单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术(SPLA)中皮肤粘合剂和消毒贴在伤口闭合后的术后和美容效果:这是一项单中心回顾性研究。我们纳入了2014年8月至2020年期间在单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术(SPLA)中皮下缝合后分别使用皮肤粘合剂和立体贴进行皮肤缝合的22例和47例患者。术后填写了患者疤痕评估问卷(PSAQ),以评估术后美容效果:术后当天,使用皮肤粘合剂的患者的数字评分明显低于使用消毒条的患者(2.8 ± 0.8 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8,p < 0.001)。与伤口封闭条组相比,皮肤粘合剂组在术后 24 小时内以及 24 至 48 小时内使用镇痛剂的频率明显较低(分别为 1.4 ± 0.8 vs. 2.7 ± 1.2,p = 0.013 和 0.2 ± 0.4 vs. 0.7 ± 0.9,p = 0.002)。在 PSAQ 中,使用皮肤粘合剂的患者的 "外观满意度 "和 "症状满意度 "分项得分明显较低(11.3 ± 3.0 vs. 15.1 ± 4.5,p = 0.006 和 6.5 ± 1.8 vs. 9.5 ± 3.3,p = 0.003),而 "外观 "和 "意识 "分项在组间无显著统计学差异:结论:与皮下缝合后的伤口闭合条闭合相比,液体皮肤粘合剂闭合似乎安全可行,术后疼痛较少,患者对术后疤痕的满意度更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Acute peritonitis caused by a ruptured urachal cyst accompanied by omphalitis in an adult: a case report and literature review. Analyzing the emergence of surgical robotics in Africa: a scoping review of pioneering procedures, platforms utilized, and outcome meta-analysis. Assessment of mechanical bowel preparation prior to nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery era: insights from a national database analysis in the United States. Automated machine learning with R: AutoML tools for beginners in clinical research. Is prophylactic abdominal drainage mandatory in laparoscopic hemicolectomy?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1