Skin closure with 2-octyl cyanoacrylate and polyester mesh after primary total knee arthroplasty offers superior cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction compared to staples: a prospective trial
- 5 Downloads
The goals of this study were to compare patient satisfaction and wound-related complications in patients receiving 2-octyl cyanoacrylate (glue) and polyester mesh for skin closure after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus staples.
A total of 60 knees in 54 patients undergoing TKA were enrolled in a prospective trial and randomized to receive either skin closure with glue and polyester mesh (n = 30) or a control group closed with staples (n = 30). Hollander wound cosmesis score (measured on a scale of 0–5, with 0 being the best) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores (range 0–100 mm) for patient satisfaction with wound cosmesis, as well as wound-related readmission, reoperation, and complications, including superficial surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, wound hematoma, stitch abscess, and wound discharge, were assessed at 6 weeks and 90 days after TKA. Baseline characteristics were not statistically significantly different between the groups (p > 0.05).
At 6 weeks and 90 days, the Hollander wound cosmesis score was significantly lower (p < 0.01) in the glue and polyester mesh groups. Similarly, at 6 weeks and 90 days, the VAS for patient satisfaction with wound cosmesis was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in the glue and polyester mesh groups. The rate of superficial surgical site infection was 1/30 (3%) in glue and polyester mesh groups versus zero in the control group (p = 1.00). The rate of wound dehiscence was 1/30 (3%) in glue and polyester mesh groups versus zero in the control group (p = 1.00).
These results suggest that glue and polyester mesh closure may offer superior cosmetic outcomes to staples for skin closure in TKA.
KeywordsTotal knee arthroplasty Total knee replacement Wound closure 2-octyl cyanoacrylate Staples Wound cosmesis Wound complications
Funding was provided by Ethicon (Grant No. 15-206).
- 11.Almustafa MA, Ewen AM, Deakin AH et al (2018) Risk factors for surgical site infection following lower limb arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort analysis of 3932 lower limb arthroplasty procedures in a high volume arthroplasty unit. J Arthroplasty 33:1861–1867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.037 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Lee JC, Ishtihar S, Means JJ et al (2018) In search of an ideal closure method: a randomized, controlled trial of octyl-2-cyanoacrylate and adhesive mesh versus subcuticular suture in reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 142:850–856. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004726 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Miller AG, Swank ML (2010) Dermabond efficacy in total joint arthroplasty wounds. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 39:476–478Google Scholar