3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Dermabond™ Tissue Adhesive Versus Steri-Strips™ in Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair: An Audit of Infection and Hypertrophic Scar Rates

Journal

CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL
Volume 45, Issue 6, Pages 614-619

Publisher

ALLIANCE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP DIVISION ALLEN PRESS
DOI: 10.1597/07-072.1

Keywords

Dermabond; Steri-Strips; cleft lip repair; infection; hypertrophic scar

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the infection and hypertrophic scar rates in unilateral cleft lip repairs, having had Steri-Strips or Dermabond tissue glue applied across the repair as the final stage. Design: Retrospective study over 13 years of 307 unilateral cleft lip repairs by a single surgeon. The application of either Steri-Strips from 1992 to 1998 (121 patients) or Dermabond tissue adhesive from 1998 to 2006 (186 patients) was used in the final stage of the repair. Setting: Regional Centre for Cleft Lip and Palate Care, South West of England. Participants: 307 consecutive unilateral cleft lip patients seen from 1992 to 2006. Main outcome measures and results: There were five (4%) infections in the Steri-Strip group. All infections were with Staphylococcus aureus. No infections occurred in the Dermabond group (p < .001). There were 15 (12%) hypertrophic scars in the Steri-Strip group and 33 (18%) hypertrophic scars in the Dermabond group (p=.142). Revision surgery was required in a total of seven (6%) patients in the Steri-Strip group. No revisions were required in the Dermabond group (p. 1). Conclusion: We found a lower infection and revision rate and a similar hypertrophic scar rate when Dermabond was used instead of Steri-Strips in the final stage of unilateral cleft lip repair and suggest this study further supports the use of octyl-2-cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive in unilateral cleft lip repair.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available