J Wound Care. 2023 May 1;32(Sup5):S6-S10. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2023.32.Sup5.S6.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study was to evaluate outcomes of elective knee arthroscopy portal closure comparing two skin closure techniques.
METHOD: This was a randomised controlled trial including healthy volunteers aged ≥18 years undergoing elective knee arthroscopy that used two portals. At the time of surgery, each patient’s two arthroscopy portal closures were randomised to one of two closure techniques; the first technique used approximation of the skin with a micro-anchor skin dressing (BandGrip Inc., US), while the second closure technique used an absorbable suture (Biosyn Monofilament, Medtronic) and a liquid bonding agent skin closure (Dermabond, Ethicon Inc., US). Postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated at the first visit after knee arthroscopy and at six weeks postoperatively.
RESULTS: A total of 38 patients (76 portals) were enrolled in this study. No patients reported wound complications of either portal; thus, there was no significant difference (p>0.05) in wound complication rates between the skin closure techniques. Survey questions regarding any difference in appearance and cosmesis between the closure techniques’ portal sites were responded to by 15 patients, all of whom indicated no difference in appearance between the portal sites. There was also no statistically significant difference between the two closure techniques with regards to appearance.
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in presence of wound complications or appearance between skin closure with the micro-anchor skin dressing and the absorbable suture/liquid bonding agent skin closure.
PMID:37121665 | DOI:10.12968/jowc.2023.32.Sup5.S6
