A randomized controlled trial comparing liquid skin adhesives and staplers for surgical wound management.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-28 DOI:10.4174/astr.2025.108.3.143
Hyeon Woo Bae, Seung Yoon Yang, Ga Yoon Ku, Sohye Lee, Eun-Joo Jung, Seulkee Park, Yoon Bin Jung, Jihong Kim, Byung Soh Min
{"title":"A randomized controlled trial comparing liquid skin adhesives and staplers for surgical wound management.","authors":"Hyeon Woo Bae, Seung Yoon Yang, Ga Yoon Ku, Sohye Lee, Eun-Joo Jung, Seulkee Park, Yoon Bin Jung, Jihong Kim, Byung Soh Min","doi":"10.4174/astr.2025.108.3.143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Despite the widespread use of liquid skin adhesives (LSA), concerns persist regarding the increase in wound care costs. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LSA for surgical wound management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective, open-label, single-center randomized controlled trial, adults aged 19 years and older who were scheduled for elective minimally invasive colorectal surgeries were included. The participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: an n-butyl cyanoacrylate skin adhesive was used in the experimental group (LSA group), while a surgical skin stapler was employed in the control group (stapler group). The primary outcome measure was the sum of the total time required for wound management.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 58 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups, with 29 patients in each group. The findings revealed comparable wound complication rates in the 2 groups (8 out of 29 in the LSA group <i>vs.</i> 5 out of 29 in the stapler group, P = 0.530). Notably, the LSA group had a significantly shorter wound management time (median 235 seconds <i>vs.</i> 1,201 seconds, P < 0.001) and similar wound management cost (median US dollar [USD] 50.6 <i>vs.</i> USD 54.6, P = 0.529) compared to the stapler group. Subgroup analysis showed that the LSA group had a shorter management time for uncomplicated wounds and a lower cost for complicated wounds.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LSA not only provides a safe alternative but also offers a resource-efficient option for wound management compared to staplers.</p>","PeriodicalId":8071,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research","volume":"108 3","pages":"143-149"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11896759/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2025.108.3.143","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Despite the widespread use of liquid skin adhesives (LSA), concerns persist regarding the increase in wound care costs. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LSA for surgical wound management.

Methods: In this prospective, open-label, single-center randomized controlled trial, adults aged 19 years and older who were scheduled for elective minimally invasive colorectal surgeries were included. The participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: an n-butyl cyanoacrylate skin adhesive was used in the experimental group (LSA group), while a surgical skin stapler was employed in the control group (stapler group). The primary outcome measure was the sum of the total time required for wound management.

Results: A total of 58 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups, with 29 patients in each group. The findings revealed comparable wound complication rates in the 2 groups (8 out of 29 in the LSA group vs. 5 out of 29 in the stapler group, P = 0.530). Notably, the LSA group had a significantly shorter wound management time (median 235 seconds vs. 1,201 seconds, P < 0.001) and similar wound management cost (median US dollar [USD] 50.6 vs. USD 54.6, P = 0.529) compared to the stapler group. Subgroup analysis showed that the LSA group had a shorter management time for uncomplicated wounds and a lower cost for complicated wounds.

Conclusion: LSA not only provides a safe alternative but also offers a resource-efficient option for wound management compared to staplers.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Manuscripts to the Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research (Ann Surg Treat Res) should be written in English according to the instructions for authors. If the details are not described below, the style should follow the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publications available at International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) website (http://www.icmje.org).
期刊最新文献
A randomized controlled trial comparing liquid skin adhesives and staplers for surgical wound management. A single center experience on clinical outcome of fundoplication in pediatric patients: a retrospective cohort study. Enhancing recurrent laryngeal nerve localization during transoral endoscopic thyroid surgery using augmented reality: a proof-of-concept study. Prognostic value of admission base excess in postoperative outcomes of aortic dissection patients: a retrospective cohort analysis. Safety and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants in fragile patients with venous thromboembolism: a retrospective cohort observational study.
×
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