组织粘合剂与缝合皮肤修复唇裂的美学效果——一项回顾性比较研究

S. Rout, Ritesh Panda, Mainak Mallik
{"title":"组织粘合剂与缝合皮肤修复唇裂的美学效果——一项回顾性比较研究","authors":"S. Rout, Ritesh Panda, Mainak Mallik","doi":"10.4103/jclpca.jclpca_31_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Suture removal in infants and children operated for cleft lip is one of the cumbersome task for the surgeons because of missing compliance. For this reason, tissue adhesives have gained popularity among the surgeons as well as the patients over the past two decades for skin wound closure. Although there are several published reports of case series using tissue adhesive for skin closure during cleft lip repair, very few have established its advantage over conventional suture technique. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the esthetic outcome of skin closure in cleft lip repair with suture technique and tissue adhesive, with respect to the quality of scar. Methodology: A retrospective observational study was conducted by analyzing the photographic records of patients who underwent surgical repair of cleft lip between January 2015 and December 2017. The patients were divided into two groups, one for whom skin closure performed with 5-0 monofilament polyamide suture and the other with tissue adhesive. Esthetic outcome in terms of the quality of scar was assessed using a 5 point Likert's scale by 10 independent observers who remained blind of the surgeon performed the surgery, to reduce the assessor-related bias to minimum. The statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 27.0 and the difference between mean scores of both the groups was calculated. Results: A total of 70 patients were included in this study with 35 in each group. The mean follow-up period of adhesive and the suture group was 13.97 and 17.85 months, respectively. Overall mean of the total scores of the entire patient population was 3.92 (+/‒0.38). For the tissue adhesive group, the mean score was 3.88 (+/‒0.367) and for the suture group, the mean score was 3.96 (+/‒0.401). The difference between mean scores of individual parameters of both the groups as well as the difference between the overall mean scores of both the groups was not found to be statistically significant. Conclusion: The use of tissue adhesive for the closure of skin during cleft lip repair is as good as sutures, with respect to esthetic outcome of scar. Hence, any of these two techniques can be used for this purpose depending on the surgeon's preference.","PeriodicalId":34294,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cleft Lip Palate and Craniofacial Anomalies","volume":"9 1","pages":"41 - 48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Esthetic outcome of cleft lip repair with the use of tissue adhesive as opposed to suture for skin closure – A retrospective comparative study\",\"authors\":\"S. Rout, Ritesh Panda, Mainak Mallik\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jclpca.jclpca_31_21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Suture removal in infants and children operated for cleft lip is one of the cumbersome task for the surgeons because of missing compliance. For this reason, tissue adhesives have gained popularity among the surgeons as well as the patients over the past two decades for skin wound closure. Although there are several published reports of case series using tissue adhesive for skin closure during cleft lip repair, very few have established its advantage over conventional suture technique. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the esthetic outcome of skin closure in cleft lip repair with suture technique and tissue adhesive, with respect to the quality of scar. Methodology: A retrospective observational study was conducted by analyzing the photographic records of patients who underwent surgical repair of cleft lip between January 2015 and December 2017. The patients were divided into two groups, one for whom skin closure performed with 5-0 monofilament polyamide suture and the other with tissue adhesive. Esthetic outcome in terms of the quality of scar was assessed using a 5 point Likert's scale by 10 independent observers who remained blind of the surgeon performed the surgery, to reduce the assessor-related bias to minimum. The statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 27.0 and the difference between mean scores of both the groups was calculated. Results: A total of 70 patients were included in this study with 35 in each group. The mean follow-up period of adhesive and the suture group was 13.97 and 17.85 months, respectively. Overall mean of the total scores of the entire patient population was 3.92 (+/‒0.38). For the tissue adhesive group, the mean score was 3.88 (+/‒0.367) and for the suture group, the mean score was 3.96 (+/‒0.401). The difference between mean scores of individual parameters of both the groups as well as the difference between the overall mean scores of both the groups was not found to be statistically significant. Conclusion: The use of tissue adhesive for the closure of skin during cleft lip repair is as good as sutures, with respect to esthetic outcome of scar. Hence, any of these two techniques can be used for this purpose depending on the surgeon's preference.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cleft Lip Palate and Craniofacial Anomalies\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"41 - 48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cleft Lip Palate and Craniofacial Anomalies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jclpca.jclpca_31_21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cleft Lip Palate and Craniofacial Anomalies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jclpca.jclpca_31_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:婴幼儿唇裂手术的拆线是困扰外科医生的难题之一。因此,在过去的二十年中,组织粘接剂在外科医生和患者中获得了广泛的应用,用于皮肤伤口愈合。虽然有几个已发表的病例系列报道使用组织粘接剂在唇裂修复皮肤闭合,很少有建立其优于传统缝合技术的优势。目的:本研究的目的是比较缝合技术和组织粘接剂修复唇裂皮肤的美学效果,以及疤痕的质量。方法:回顾性观察分析2015年1月至2017年12月唇裂手术修复患者的照片记录。患者分为两组,一组采用5-0单丝聚酰胺缝合,另一组采用组织粘接剂缝合。疤痕质量方面的美学结果由10名独立观察员使用5分Likert量表进行评估,他们对外科医生进行手术保持盲,以减少评估者相关的偏差到最小。采用SPSS 27.0版本进行统计分析,计算两组平均得分的差值。结果:本研究共纳入70例患者,每组35例。黏合剂组和缝合组的平均随访时间分别为13.97个月和17.85个月。整个患者群体的总得分的总体平均值为3.92(+/ -0.38)。组织粘接剂组平均评分为3.88(+/ -0.367),缝合组平均评分为3.96(+/ -0.401)。两组单项参数平均得分的差异以及两组总体平均得分的差异均无统计学意义。结论:在唇裂修复术中使用组织粘接剂进行皮肤闭合与缝合在疤痕的美观效果上是一样好的。因此,根据外科医生的喜好,这两种技术中的任何一种都可以用于此目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Esthetic outcome of cleft lip repair with the use of tissue adhesive as opposed to suture for skin closure – A retrospective comparative study
Background: Suture removal in infants and children operated for cleft lip is one of the cumbersome task for the surgeons because of missing compliance. For this reason, tissue adhesives have gained popularity among the surgeons as well as the patients over the past two decades for skin wound closure. Although there are several published reports of case series using tissue adhesive for skin closure during cleft lip repair, very few have established its advantage over conventional suture technique. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the esthetic outcome of skin closure in cleft lip repair with suture technique and tissue adhesive, with respect to the quality of scar. Methodology: A retrospective observational study was conducted by analyzing the photographic records of patients who underwent surgical repair of cleft lip between January 2015 and December 2017. The patients were divided into two groups, one for whom skin closure performed with 5-0 monofilament polyamide suture and the other with tissue adhesive. Esthetic outcome in terms of the quality of scar was assessed using a 5 point Likert's scale by 10 independent observers who remained blind of the surgeon performed the surgery, to reduce the assessor-related bias to minimum. The statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 27.0 and the difference between mean scores of both the groups was calculated. Results: A total of 70 patients were included in this study with 35 in each group. The mean follow-up period of adhesive and the suture group was 13.97 and 17.85 months, respectively. Overall mean of the total scores of the entire patient population was 3.92 (+/‒0.38). For the tissue adhesive group, the mean score was 3.88 (+/‒0.367) and for the suture group, the mean score was 3.96 (+/‒0.401). The difference between mean scores of individual parameters of both the groups as well as the difference between the overall mean scores of both the groups was not found to be statistically significant. Conclusion: The use of tissue adhesive for the closure of skin during cleft lip repair is as good as sutures, with respect to esthetic outcome of scar. Hence, any of these two techniques can be used for this purpose depending on the surgeon's preference.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Crown root ratio and angulation of various permanent teeth in patients with and without cleft lip/palate Orthodontic-prosthetic rehabilitation of alveolar cleft An observational pilot study on anthropometric analysis of lip–nose complex of unilateral cleft lip children and age-matched controls by three-dimensional digital photogrammetry Cleft palate surgical perspectives: A pilot study Surgical technique to achieve postoperative alar base symmetry in complete bilateral cleft lip and alveolus repair – A prospective 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