A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Comparison of Adhesive Wound Closure Devices in an Orthopaedic Patient

John F Burke, Ian S MacLean, J Michael Smith, Joseph M Hart, Mark D Miller, John F Burke, Ian S MacLean, J Michael Smith, Joseph M Hart, Mark D Miller

Abstract

Introduction: The objective of this study was to compare Zip and Clozex with a typical closure using a running 3-0 Prolene suture.

Methods: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in patients aged 18 years and older undergoing elective orthopaedic surgical procedures between 2019 and 2021. Patients were randomized to undergo skin closure using a running 3-0 Prolene suture, Zip, or Clozex. The length and location of incision, time to close, surgeon satisfaction, and complications were recorded. The Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale (SBSES) was used to assess cosmesis at 2 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Patient satisfaction and adverse events were also recorded.

Results: Thirty-two patients were included in the analysis. Suture closure time was longer than Zip (266 vs 123 seconds; P = 0.02) and Clozex (266 vs 91 seconds; P = 0.005). SBSES scores were greater for Clozex at 2 weeks compared with suture (4.09 vs 2.8; P = 0.005). At 3 months, Clozex maintained greater scores compared with suture (3.82 vs 2.85; P = 0.023) and Zip (3.82 vs 3.0; P = 0.046).No differences were observed in patient satisfaction at any time points.

Discussion: Although patient satisfaction was similar across groups, wound closure times, SBSES scores, and total cost favor Clozex compared with Prolene suture or Zip.

Clinicaltrialsgov registration number: NCT05251064.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Hart or an immediate family member has received research support from DJ Orthopaedics; serves as an editorial or governing board of the Journal of Athletic Training and Journal of Sport Rehabilitation and Athletic Training & Sports Healthcare; serves as a board or committee member of the NATA Foundation; and has stock or stock options held in Springbok. Dr. Miller or an immediate family member serves as a board or committee member of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine and has received IP royalties and serves as a paid consultant to Arthrex, Clozex, Johnson & Johnson, and Stryker. None of the following authors or any immediate family member has received anything of value from or has stock or stock options held in a commercial company or institution related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article: Dr. Burke, Dr. MacLean, and Dr. Smith.

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Photograph depicting blisters in a patient treated with Zip after device removal.

References

    1. Evidence-based Medicine:Levels of evidence are described in the table of contents. In this article, references 2–4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 21–24, and 26 are level I studies. References 1, 8, 13, 16, 27, and 28 are level II studies. Reference 5 is a level III study. References 9, 17, 18, and 25 are level IV studies. Reference 19 is a level V report or expert opinion.

    1. Agarwala S, Vijayvargiya M: Concealed cosmetic closure in total knee replacement surgery—A prospective audit assessing appearance and patient satisfaction. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2019;10:111-116.
    1. Khan RJK, Fick D, Yao F, et al. : A comparison of three methods of wound closure following arthroplasty. A prospective, randomised, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88:238-242.
    1. Risnes I, Abdelnoor M, Tore Baksaas S, Lundblad R, Svennevig JL: Sternal wound infections in patients undergoing open heart surgery: Randomized study comparing intracutaneous and transcutaneous suture techniques. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;72:1587-1591.
    1. Karabay O, Fermanci E, Silistreli E, et al. : Intracutaneous versus transcutaneous suture techniques: Comparison of sternal wound infection rates in open-heart surgery patients. Texas Hear Inst J 2005;32:277-282.
    1. Krebs VE, Elmallah RK, Khlopas A, et al. : Wound closure techniques for total knee arthroplasty: An evidence-based review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 2018;33:633-638.
    1. Lazar HL, McCann J, Fitzgerald CA, Thompson J, Bao Y, Cabral HJ: Novel adhesive skin closures improve wound healing following saphenous vein harvesting. J Card Surg 2008;23:152-155.
    1. Fleisher J, Khalifeh A, Pettker C, Berghella V, Dabbish N, Mackeen AD: Patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome in a randomized study of cesarean skin closure. J Matern Neonatal Med 2019;32:3830-3835.
    1. Badres IA, Suen K, Tran P: Effect of wound closure technique in proximal femoral fractures: A prospective cohort study. J Orthop Trauma 2020;34:553-558.
    1. Cochetti G, Abraha I, Randolph J, et al. : Surgical wound closure by staples or sutures?: Systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99:e20573.
    1. Grottkau BE, Rebello G, Merlin G, Winograd JM: Coaptive film versus subcuticular suture: Comparing skin closure time after posterior spinal instrumented fusion in pediatric patients with spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:2027-2029.
    1. van de Gevel DFD, Soliman Hamad MA, Elenbaas TWO, Ostertag JU, Schönberger JPAM: Is the use of Steri-Strip S for wound closure after coronary artery bypass grafting better than intracuticular suture? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2010;10:561-564.
    1. Kuo F, Lee D, Rogers GS: Prospective, randomized, blinded study of a new wound closure film versus cutaneous suture for surgical wound closure. Dermatol Surg 2006;32:676-681.
    1. Ko JH, Yang IH, Ko MS, Kamolhuja E, Park KK: Do zip-type skin-closing devices show better wound status compared to conventional staple devices in total knee arthroplasty? Int Wound J 2017;14:250-254.
    1. Kerrigan CL, Homa K: Evaluation of a new wound closure device for linear surgical incisions: 3M steri-strip s surgical skin closure versus subcuticular closure. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125:186-194.
    1. Widodo A, Rahajoe PS, Astuti RT: TGF-β expression and wound tensile strength after simple interrupted suturing and zip surgical skin closure (IN VIVO study). Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2020;58:187-193.
    1. Carli AV, Spiro S, Barlow BT, Haas SB: Using a non-invasive secure skin closure following total knee arthroplasty leads to fewer wound complications and no patient home care visits compared to surgical staples. Knee 2017;24:1221-1226.
    1. Tian P, Li YM, Li ZJ, Xu GJ, Ma XL: Comparison between zip-type skin closure device and staple for total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int 2021;2021:6670064.
    1. Xie CX, Yu CQ, Wang W, Wang CL, Yin D: A novel zipper device versus sutures for wound closure after surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Wound J 2020;17:1725-1737.
    1. Singer AJ, Arora B, Dagum A, Valentine S, Hollander JE: Development and validation of a novel scar evaluation scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;120:1960-1965.
    1. Prices of Common Procedures & Services. UVA Heal, 2021. . Accessed November 17, 2021.
    1. Tanaka Y, Miyamoto T, Naito Y, Yoshitake S, Sasahara A, Miyaji K: Randomized study of a new noninvasive skin closure device for use after congenital heart operations. Ann Thorac Surg 2016;102:1368-1374.
    1. Menkowitz B, Olivieri G, Belson O: Patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome in a randomized, prospective study of total knee arthroplasty skin closure comparing zip surgical skin closure with staples. Cureus 2020;12:e6705.
    1. Benner RW, Behrens JP: A novel skin closure device for total knee arthroplasty: Randomized controlled trial versus staples. J Knee Surg 2020;33:1116-1120.
    1. Levi K, Ichiryu K, Kefel P, et al. : Mechanics of wound closure: Emerging tape-based wound closure technology vs. traditional methods. Cureus 2016;8:e827.
    1. Tokars JI, Bell DM, Culver DH, et al. : Percutaneous injuries during surgical procedures. JAMA 1992;267:2899-2904.
    1. Roolker W, Kraaneveld E, Been HD, Marti RK: Results of a prospective randomised study comparing a non-invasive surgical zipper versus intracutaneous sutures for wound closure. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2002;122:2-4.
    1. Gorsulowsky DC, Talmor G: A novel noninvasive wound closure device as the final layer in skin closure. Dermatol Surg 2015;41:987-989.
    1. Lee H, Yeom SY, Kim HJ, Yoo JS, Kim DJ, Cho KR: Comparison between noninvasive and conventional skin closure methods in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting using bilateral internal thoracic artery. J Thorac Dis 2019;11:3920-3928.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere