World J Methodol. Oct 28, 2020; 10(1): 1-6 Published online Oct 28, 2020. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v10.i1.1
Randomized clinical trial comparing skin closure with tissue adhesives vs subcuticular suture after robotic urogynecologic procedures
Sunetris Fluellen, Kyle Mackey, Karen Hagglund, Muhammad Faisal Aslam
Sunetris Fluellen, Kyle Mackey, Muhammad Faisal Aslam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ascension St John Hospital and Medical Center, Detroit, MI 48236, United States
Karen Hagglund, Medical Research, Ascension St John Hospital and Medical Center, Detroit, MI 48236, United States
Author contributions: Fluellen S designed and performed the research study; Mackey K wrote manuscript; Hagglund K performed data analysis; Aslam MF designed research study.
Institutional review board statement: This study was reviewed and approved by Ascension St John Hospital Institutional Review Board, reference number 1165375.
Clinical trial registration statement: This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov with an ID: NCT03891004.
Informed consent statement: All subjects in this study provided informed written consent prior to study enrollment.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors in this study do not have any conflict-of-interests.
Data sharing statement: Dataset available from the corresponding author at kyle.mackey@ascension.org.
CONSORT 2010 statement: The authors confirm that the manuscript was prepared according to the CONSORT 2010 statement.
Corresponding author: Kyle Mackey, MD, Doctor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ascension St John Hospital and Medical Center, 22101 Moross Road, Detroit, MI 48236, United States. kyle.mackey@ascension.org
Received: March 9, 2020 Peer-review started: March 9, 2020 First decision: September 21, 2020 Revised: October 6, 2020 Accepted: October 13, 2020 Article in press: October 13, 2020 Published online: October 28, 2020 Processing time: 231 Days and 2.2 Hours
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background
Skin closure method during robotic urogynecologic procedures can vary overall operative time and costs. Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive is a potential method to reduce this as compared to subcuticular suture, and maintain incisional cosmesis while not jeopardizing wound complications.
Research motivation
A faster yet comparable method for skin closure during robotic urogynecologic procedures may significantly reduce operative time and costs while maintaining or even improving incisional cosmesis.
Research objectives
To compare skin closure via cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive and subcuticular suture during robotic urogynecologic procedures.
Research methods
Fifty subjects were randomized to have port site closure with either cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive or subcuticular suture. Subjects were follow for 12-wk posteroperatively to evaluate incisional cosmesis and complications.
Research results
Closure time was significantly reduced using cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive than with subcuticular suture. Cosmesis scores were greater in the cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive group. No differences in bleeding, infection, or dehiscence existed.
Research conclusions
Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive for skin closure during robotic urogynecologic procedures reduces operative time and improves incisional cosmesis compared to subcuticular suture. Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive is a reasonable alternative for skin closure during robotic urogynecologic procedures.
Research perspectives
The utility of tissue adhesive as reducing operative time and overall costs is a potential area of future investigation.
