» Articles » PMID: 37713853

Clinical Effect Analysis of Using Medical Glue Versus Conventional Suturing to Treat Dog Bite in Children's Maxillofacial Region After Negative Pressure Sealing Drainage: A Randomized Trial

Overview
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2023 Sep 15
PMID 37713853
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: To compare the clinical effectiveness of applying medical glue versus conventional suturing after primary suturing and continuous vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) technology in the treatment of facial wounds caused by dog bites in children's maxillofacial region, with respect to operation time, wound infection rate, treatment effect, and patient satisfaction.

Methods: From May 2020 to July 2022, 68 children with a dog bite in the maxillofacial region were randomly divided into medical glue and conventional suturing groups. The patients in both groups were treated with conventional debridement, tetanus and/or rabies immunization, and antibiotic therapy. The medical glue group was treated with VSD after the first-stage of the loose suture of the wound. After 5 days, the suture was removed, and the wound was tightly bonded with medical glue again. The conventional suturing group was treated with VSD after the first-stage of loose suture of the wound. The primary outcomes were the operation time and satisfaction of the 2 groups, and the secondary outcomes was the wound infection rate.

Results: The operation time of the medical glue group was significantly lower than that of the conventional suturing group. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the wound infection rate. Still, the patient satisfaction was significantly better in the medical glue group than the conventional suturing group with statistically significant difference (P < .05).

Conclusion: In conclusion, applying medical glue after using negative pressure sealing drainage in treating maxillofacial dog bites can reduce surgeons work intensity, lessen children's pain, and improve the clinical treatment effect.

Citing Articles

Animal Bite Injuries to the Face: A Retrospective Evaluation of 111 Cases.

Maurer M, Schlipkoter C, Gottsauner M, Waiss W, Meier J, Fiedler M J Clin Med. 2023; 12(21).

PMID: 37959407 PMC: 10649818. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12216942.

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.
Sanders L, Nagatomi J . Clinical applications of surgical adhesives and sealants. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2015; 42(3-4):271-92. PMC: 7997729. DOI: 10.1615/critrevbiomedeng.2014011676. View

3.
Talan D, Citron D, Abrahamian F, Moran G, Goldstein E . Bacteriologic analysis of infected dog and cat bites. Emergency Medicine Animal Bite Infection Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340(2):85-92. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199901143400202. View

4.
Bal-Ozturk A, Cecen B, Avci-Adali M, Topkaya S, Alarcin E, Yasayan G . Tissue Adhesives: From Research to Clinical Translation. Nano Today. 2021; 36. PMC: 7793024. DOI: 10.1016/j.nantod.2020.101049. View

5.
Rui-Feng C, Li-Song H, Ji-Bo Z, Li-qiu W . Emergency treatment on facial laceration of dog bite wounds with immediate primary closure: a prospective randomized trial study. BMC Emerg Med. 2013; 13 Suppl 1:S2. PMC: 3701467. DOI: 10.1186/1471-227X-13-S1-S2. View