Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Methodol. Oct 28, 2020; 10(1): 1-6
Published online Oct 28, 2020. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v10.i1.1
Published online Oct 28, 2020. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v10.i1.1
Table 2 Patient characteristics stratified by subcuticular skin closure and tissue adhesive closure
| Demographics | Tissue adhesive n = 23, mean ± SD or n (%) | Subcuticular suture n = 24, mean ± SD or n (%) | P value |
| Age (yr) | 58.3 ± 9.9 | 56.8 ±13.2 | 0.659 |
| Body mass index | 27.9 ± 5.8 | 28.7 ± 4.6 | 0.60 |
| Parity | 2.6 ± 1.5 | 2.5 ± 1.2 | 0.954 |
| Race | |||
| Caucasian | 19 (83) | 20 (83) | 1.0 |
| Black | 4 (17) | 4 (17) |
- Citation: Fluellen S, Mackey K, Hagglund K, Aslam MF. Randomized clinical trial comparing skin closure with tissue adhesives vs subcuticular suture after robotic urogynecologic procedures. World J Methodol 2020; 10(1): 1-6
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2222-0682/full/v10/i1/1.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v10.i1.1