{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: A Single-Center Randomized Prospective Study Investigating the Efficacy of Various Wound Closure Devices in Reducing Postoperative Wound Complications.
{Author}: Greenbaum S;Zak S;Tesoriero PJ;Rudy H;Vigdorchik J;Long WJ;Schwarzkopf R;
{Journal}: Arthroplast Today
{Volume}: 9
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: Jun 2021
暂无{DOI}: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.04.016
{Abstract}: <B>UNASSIGNED: </B>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.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>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.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>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.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>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.