A Clinical Trial Comparing Monocryl and Dermabond Closure Versus Staple Closure in Total Hip Arthroplasty

August 6, 2015 updated by: James Howard, Lawson Health Research Institute

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Monocryl and Dermabond Closure Versus Staple Closure in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty will be randomized to receive either monocryl closure of fascial and dermal layers with dermabond and tegaderm covering versus standard vicryl closure of fascia layer and staple closure for skin. Short term wound complications, pain and patient and surgeon-rated cosmetic scar appearance will be measured. The investigators will also measure operating room time and costs associated with dressing changes and wound-related procedures (e.g. staple removal).

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Wound closure has always been based on surgeon preference and type of closure. Skin closure is considered the most important part of the surgical procedure by some since it is often the only visible evidence of the surgical procedure. In fact, conclusions about the success of the surgery are often based on the appearance of the wound.

There have been a few studies in a variety of surgical journals that have looked at the two pertinent methods of closure with the majority coming from obstetrical journals comparing caesarian section closure with staples versus a subcuticular monocryl suture. For the most part, although patient satisfaction is quite high initially for a subcuticular closure, at long term follow-up patient satisfaction scores are quite similar.

One study published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery recommended that staple closure was more beneficial for skin closure than monocryl sutures for total hip and knee arthroplasty. Their recommendations were based on an overall shorter operative time when using staple closure compared to monocryl sutures. They also found that final patient satisfaction and complication rates were relatively similar 3 months postoperatively. This group published an earlier paper as well describing the use of glue for closure and did report an decrease in overall drainage rates when they analyzed their data for subcuticular sutures as opposed to staples.

A more recent study evaluated wound appearance at 3 months using a surgeon -rated visual analogue scale to compared the use of adhesive tapes versus staples for skin closure following total hip arthroplasty. Again, no significant difference in patient satisfaction scores were reported.

To date, there is a paucity of well-powered studies to compare outcomes in patients whose wounds are closed using the usual staple methods compared to a monocryl suture method. In addition, outcomes have focused on surgeon-ratings and not patient ratings. The proposal for this study is to compare overall patient and surgeon-rated cosmetic scar appearance and complications following total hip replacement with skin closure for using monocryl suture versus staples. This study would use a more recent, validated assessment tool than the VAS scale. The assessment is called the Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS ) and it incorporates six essential features about the wound such as colour, malleability, etc. The form is split so that the surgeon rating carries the same weight in the final score as the patient assessment of their own scar. This scale gives a nice balance for determining overall satisfaction and wound healing combining surgeon and patient scores.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

139

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. 18 - 100 years old
  2. Undergoing total hip replacement

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Previous scar over newly planned incision
  2. Alcoholism
  3. Mentally unfit to complete questionnaire
  4. Connective tissue disease and/or psoriasis/eczema/dermatitis
  5. Previous joint infection at surgical site
  6. Any use of immunosuppressive medications or disease modifying agents
  7. Medical contra-indication to surgery
  8. Pregnancy
  9. Lack of permanent home address
  10. Drug Abuse
  11. Allergy to Skin Adhesive

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Monocryl closure

The skin incision is closed with monocryl dissolvable sutures and a topical adhesive (glue) called Dermabond and covered with a Tegaderm dressing.

Intervention: Monocryl closure, Tegaderm dressing

Total Hip Arthroplasty with monocryl closure of wound
Total Hip Arthroplasty with monocryl closure of wound and tegaderm dressing
Active Comparator: Vicryl and staple closure

The skin incision is closed with vicryl and staples and covered with a gauze dressing.

Intervention: Vicryl and Staple closure, Gauze dressing

Total Hip Arthroplasty with vicryl and staple closure of wound
Total Hip Arthroplasty with vicryl and staple closure of wound and gauze dressing

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale for overall patient satisfaction rates.
Time Frame: 3 months
Questionnaire
3 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Wound complications
Time Frame: 2 week, 6 week, 3 month post-operatively
Analysis - number of participants with wound complications
2 week, 6 week, 3 month post-operatively
Drainage rates
Time Frame: 2 week, 6 week, 3 month post-operatively
Analysis - number of participants with wound drainage
2 week, 6 week, 3 month post-operatively
Need for post-operative antibiotics
Time Frame: 2 week, 6 week, 3 month post-operatively
Analysis - number of participants with need for post-operative antibiotics
2 week, 6 week, 3 month post-operatively
Patient pain score
Time Frame: 2 week, 6 week, 3 month post-operatively
Questionnaire
2 week, 6 week, 3 month post-operatively

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

January 1, 2010

Primary Completion (Actual)

July 1, 2011

Study Completion (Actual)

December 1, 2013

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 28, 2015

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 6, 2015

First Posted (Estimate)

August 11, 2015

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

August 11, 2015

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 6, 2015

Last Verified

August 1, 2015

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 6757 (REB # 16747)

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Unilateral Primary Osteoarthritis, Unspecified Hip

Clinical Trials on Monocryl closure

Subscribe