A prospective randomized comparison of two skin closure techniques in acetabular fracture surgery

Christopher D Mudd, John A Boudreau, Berton R Moed, Christopher D Mudd, John A Boudreau, Berton R Moed

Abstract

Background: Recent publications have shown an infection rate of 5-7 % for acetabular fractures treated with the Kocher-Langenbeck (K-L) approach. Using metallic staples to close hip skin incisions has been considered the gold standard. The purpose of this study was to answer the following: (1) will closure of a K-L incision after acetabular fracture surgery with a running subcuticular monocryl suture, then sealing the wound with 2-octyl cyanoacrylate (OCA), result in a lower infection rate compared to metallic staple closure? (2) Do incisions closed with subcuticular monocryl and OCA exhibit decreased drainage? (3) Is there a cost difference between these two methods?

Materials and methods: In a prospective clinical study, 103 patients with acetabular fractures treated using the K-L approach were randomized into two groups: skin closure with metallic staples (n = 52) versus subcuticular running monocryl suture sealed with OCA (n = 51).

Results: Two postoperative deep infections (4 %) in the staples group required multiple debridements; no infections developed in the OCA group. However, there was no statistical difference between the groups, (p = 0.495). There was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.032) comparing days from surgery to a dry incision favoring OCA (4.2 versus 5.85 days). The patient charge was approximately $900 greater on average in the OCA group due to the increased time in the operating room required for the subcuticular closure.

Conclusions: Closure with OCA and subcuticular monocryl showed no clinical disadvantages and appears to have a clinical advantage when compared to standard metallic staple skin closure in acetabular fracture surgery. However, additional patient costs may be incurred.

Level of evidence: II.

References

    1. Moed BR. Acetabular fractures: Kocher-Langenbeck approach. In: Wiss DA, editor. Master techniques in orthopaedic surgery: fractures. 3. Philadelphia: LWW; 2012. pp. 817–868.
    1. Slade Shantz JA, Vernon J, Morshed S, Leiter J, Stranges G. Sutures versus staples for wound closure in orthopaedic surgery: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Patient Saf Surg. 2013;7:6. doi: 10.1186/1754-9493-7-6.
    1. Smith TO, Sexton D, Mann C, Donell S. Sutures versus staples for skin closure in orthopaedic surgery: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;340:c1199. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1199.
    1. Gennari R, Rotmensz N, Ballardini B, Scevola S, Perego E, Zanini V, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial of tissue adhesive (2-octyl cyanoacrylate) versus standard wound closure in breast surgery. Surgery. 2004;136:593–599. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2004.02.015.
    1. Hall LT, Bailes JE. Using Dermabond for wound closure in lumbar and cervical neurosurgical procedures. Oper Neurosurg. 2005;56:147–150. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000144170.39436.52.
    1. Krishnamoorthy B, Najam O, Khan UA, Waterworth P, Fildes JE, Yonan N. Randomized prospective study comparing conventional subcuticular skin closure with Dermabond skin glue after saphenous vein harvesting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:1445–1450. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.06.047.
    1. Ong J, Ho K-S, Chew M-H, Eu K-W. Prospective randomized study to evaluate the use of Dermabond ProPen (2-octyl cyanoacrylate) in the closure of abdominal wounds versus closure with skin staples in patients undergoing elective colectomy. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010;25:899–905. doi: 10.1007/s00384-010-0929-2.
    1. Perron AD, Garcia JA, Hays EP, Schafermeyer R. The efficiency of cyanoacrylate-derived surgical adhesive for use in the repair of lacerations during athletics. Am J Emerg Med. 2000;18:261–263. doi: 10.1016/S0735-6757(00)90117-7.
    1. Shapiro AJ, Dinsmore RC, North JH., Jr Tensile strength of wound closure with cyanoacrylate glue. Am Surg. 2001;67:113–115.
    1. Singer AJ, Quinn JV, Clark RE, Hollander JE. Closure of lacerations and incisions with octyl cyanoacrylate: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Surgery. 2002;131:270–276. doi: 10.1067/msy.2002.121377.
    1. Khan RJK, Fick D, Yao F, Tang K, Hurworth M, Nivbrant B, et al. A comparison of three methods of wound closure following arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg [Br] 2006;88-B:238–242. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B2.16923.
    1. Khurana A, Parker S, Goel V, Alderman PM. Dermabond wound closure in primary hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg. 2008;74:349–353.
    1. Livesey C, Wylde V, Descamps S, Estela CM, Bannister GC, Learmonth ID, et al. Skin closure after total hip replacement: a randomized controlled trial of skin adhesive versus surgical staples. J Bone Jt Surg [Br] 2009;91-B:725–729. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B6.21831.
    1. Shetty AA, Kumar VS, Morgan-Hough C, Georgeu GA, James KD, Nicholl JE. Comparing wound complication rates following closure of hip wounds with metallic skin staples or subcuticular vicryl suture: a prospective randomized trial. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2004;12:191–193.
    1. Quinn J, Maw J, Ramotar K, Wenckebach G, Wells G. Octyl cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive versus suture wound repair in a contaminated wound model. Surgery. 1997;122:69–72. doi: 10.1016/S0039-6060(97)90266-X.
    1. Quinn JV, Osmond MH, Yurack JA, Moir PJ. N-2-butyl cyanoacrylate: risk of bacterial contamination with an appraisal of its antimicrobial effects. J Emerg Med. 1995;13:581–585. doi: 10.1016/0736-4679(95)80025-5.
    1. Singer AJ, Mohammad M, Tortora G, Thode HC, Jr, McClain SA. Octyl cyanoacrylate for the treatment of contaminated partial-thickness burns in swine: a randomized controlled experiment. Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7:222–227. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb01063.x.
    1. Matta J. Fractures of the acetabulum: accuracy of reduction and clinical results in patients managed operatively within 3 weeks after the injury. J Bone Jt Surg [Am] 1996;78-A:1632–1645.
    1. Petsatodis G, Antonarakos P, Chalidis P, Papadopoulos P, Christoforidis J, Pournaras J. Surgically treated acetabular fractures via a single posterior approach with a follow-up of 2–10 years. Injury. 2007;38:334–343. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2006.09.017.
    1. Im GI, Shin YW, Song YJ. Fractures of the posterior wall of the acetabulum managed with screws alone. J Trauma. 2004;58:300–303. doi: 10.1097/01.TA.0000149329.86361.CE.
    1. Kreder H, Rozen N, Borkhoff C, Laflamme YG, McKee MD, Schemitsch EH, et al. Determinants of functional outcome after simple and complex acetabular fractures involving the posterior wall. J Bone Jt Surg [Br] 2006;88-B:776–782. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B6.17342.
    1. Negrin LL, Benson CD, Seligson D. Prone or lateral? Use of the Kocher-Langenbeck approach to treat acetabular fractures. J Trauma. 2010;69:137–141. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181b28ba6.
    1. Letournel E, Judet R. Fractures of the acetabulum. 2. New York: Springer; 1993.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться