4.5 Article

A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Double-Masked, Multi-Center Clinical Trial of Medical Adhesives for the Closure of Laparoscopic Incisions

Journal

JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 252-258

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.10.003

Keywords

Dermabond; Laparoscopy; Liquiband; Randomized trial; Wound

Funding

  1. Advanced Medical Solutions, Plymouth, UK

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study Objective: To compare LiquiB and Surgical S (LB) (Advanced Medical Solutions Ltd, Plymouth, UK) with High Viscosity Dermabond (DB) (Ethicon Inc., Kirkland, Scotland) for the closure of laparoscopic wounds. Design: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). Setting: Multiple district hospitals. Participants: A total of 433 subjects were enrolled between 2006 and 2009 at 4 investigational sites. Interventions: In this study, LB, an octyl/butyl cyanoacrylate blend, and DB, an octyl-based cyanoacrylate, were compared for topical skin closure of laparoscopic port sites (www.clinicaltrials.gov; study identifier NCT00762905). Main Results: High dermal apposition and cosmesis scores resulted from the use of both adhesives along with low rates of wound dehiscence and suspected infections. Masked evaluators and patients favored DB in the healing of the incisions (98.3% DB vs 93.9% LB, p < .05) and (97.2% DB vs 89.4% LB, p < .05). However, there was no difference in the overall satisfaction of the appearance of the wounds. LB was found to be significantly (p < .05) faster (LB = 32.1 seconds; DB, 50.3 seconds) and easier to use than DB, and surgical users were significantly more satisfied with using LB for wound closure. Conclusion: The results of this trial show the efficacy of LB for the closure of topical skin incisions; LB was significantly faster, easier to use, and resulted in greater user satisfaction compared with DB. (c) 2014 AAGL. All rights reserved.

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