» Articles » PMID: 34136609

A Single-Center Randomized Prospective Study Investigating the Efficacy of Various Wound Closure Devices in Reducing Postoperative Wound Complications

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2021 Jun 17
PMID 34136609
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Sutures and staples are the mainstay wound closure techniques in total joint arthroplasty. Newer techniques such as zipper devices and novel skin adhesives have emerged because of their potential to decrease operative time and possibly minimize complications. The aim of this study is to compare these newer techniques against conventional sutures with respect to wound complications, closure time, and costs.

Methods: A single-center randomized control trial was conducted on 160 patients (52 zipper, 55 suture, 53 mesh) who underwent primary total hip or knee arthroplasty between February 2017 and May 2018. Patients were divided into 3 closure groups: zipper device, monofilament suture plus adhesive, and monofilament plus polyester mesh with adhesive. The primary endpoint was closure time (superficial skin layer). Secondarily we collected perioperative complication rates, including infection, persistent (14-day) wound drainage, 90-day readmission, and emergency room visit rates as well as compared material costs.

Results: There were no differences in baseline characteristics between groups for age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. There was a trend toward decreased time to closure for the suture group. There were no significant differences between groups for our secondary endpoint, complications.

Conclusions: Our study shows that the suture group trended toward shorter closure time but suggests that each of the closure methods after total joint arthroplasty has equivalent complication rates. With small differences in closure time and no significant differences in complications, the decision to use one wound closure device or technique over another should be driven by institutional costs and provider familiarity.

Citing Articles

Clinical use and applications of a citrate-based antiseptic lavage for the prevention and treatment of PJI.

Valdes D, Minter J Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1397192.

PMID: 39015785 PMC: 11249742. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1397192.


Association of Surgical Adhesive and Glue System With Incidence of Allergic Dermatitis Post Unilateral and Staged Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Ali E, Makhdom A Cureus. 2024; 16(4):e58827.

PMID: 38654960 PMC: 11037296. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58827.

References
1.
Al-Mubarak L, Al-Haddab M . Cutaneous wound closure materials: an overview and update. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2014; 6(4):178-88. PMC: 3884880. DOI: 10.4103/0974-2077.123395. View

2.
Smith E, DiSegna S, Shukla P, Matzkin E . Barbed versus traditional sutures: closure time, cost, and wound related outcomes in total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 29(2):283-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.031. View

3.
Iorio R, Clair A, Inneh I, Slover J, Bosco J, Zuckerman J . Early Results of Medicare's Bundled Payment Initiative for a 90-Day Total Joint Arthroplasty Episode of Care. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 31(2):343-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.09.004. View

4.
Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth N . Projected Volume of Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100(17):1455-1460. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.17.01617. View

5.
Aggarwal V, Weintraub S, Klock J, Stachel A, Phillips M, Schwarzkopf R . 2019 Frank Stinchfield Award: A comparison of prosthetic joint infection rates between direct anterior and non-anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2019; 101-B(6_Supple_B):2-8. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B6.BJJ-2018-0786.R1. View