scholarly journals Evaluation of three methods of suture for skin closure in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Barreiros Vieira ◽  
Gustavo Waldolato ◽  
João Sequeira Fernandes ◽  
Thiago Gontijo de Carvalho ◽  
Pedro Augusto Maciel Moreira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Skin Closure ◽  
Absorbable Suture ◽  
Continuous Suture ◽  
Subcuticular Suture ◽  
Aesthetic Result ◽  
Total Knee

Abstract Background There are several studies comparing techniques and different materials, yet the results are not unanimous. We compared three methods of skin closure in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), including suture with single stitches and unabsorbable MonoNylon®, as well as continuous subcuticular suture with Monocryl® or barbed Stratafix® absorbable suture. Methods A prospective, randomized study was conducted with 63 patients undergoing TKA between March 2016 and December 2016. Patients were divided into three groups: traditional suture MonoNylon® (n 22), subcuticular continuous suture with Monocryl® (n 20), and another barbed with Stratafix® (n 21). The closure time, length of wire used, pain intensity, possible complications, and cosmeses were evaluated. Results Subcuticular continuous suture using Monocryl® was superior to traditional suture using MonoNylon® as less thread was used (p 0.01) and a better cosmetic effect was achieved (p < 0.01), which was equal to Stratafix® aspects analyzed (p > 0.05). Complications were observed mostly in patients who used Stratafix®. Conclusions This study concluded that the subcuticular suture with absorbable monofilament Monocryl® proved to be advantageous compared to the others because it presented results equal to the barbed Stratafix®, however with fewer complications. Furthermore, Monocryl® was shown to be equal or superior to traditional MonoNylon® suture regarding in relation pain intensity, aesthetic result, and effective cost. Trial registration WHO ICTRP identifier RBR78dh5d. Retrospectively registered: 07/29/2020.

scholarly journals Adhesive strips as the sole method for skin closure is effective in total knee arthroplasty

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 230949901987398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Varah Yuenyongviwat ◽  
Khanin Iamthanaporn ◽  
Pakjai Tuntarattanapong ◽  
Kantapon Dissaneewate ◽  
Preyanun Tangjatsakow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Tissue Reaction ◽  
Skin Closure ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Superficial Infection ◽  
Subcuticular Suture ◽  
Care Protocol ◽  
Suture Group ◽  
Total Knee

Objective: Adhesive strips are used as the sole method for skin closure in many operations except total knee arthroplasty. The claims are decreased wound closure time, less tissue reaction, and lack of stitch marks. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of closure using adhesive strips versus running subcuticular stitches. Methods: This study was a retrospective case-matched study. Running subcuticular stitches or adhesive strips were used for skin closure in 151 and 137 patients, respectively. All of the patients had an operation by a single surgeon and had the same patient care protocol. All of the patients were evaluated postoperatively for wound complication at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months follow-up. Results: The wounds of most patients in both groups had healed. The incidence of superficial infection was not different between the groups (1.32% in the running subcuticular suture group and 1.46% in the adhesive strip group) ( p = 0.92). One case (0.66%) in the running subcuticular suture group had deep infection, which required reoperation ( p = 0.34). The patients in the running subcuticular suture group had higher unabsorbable sutures, which required further removal compared to the adhesive strip group ( p < 0.001). Conclusion: The use of adhesive strips is an effective skin closure method with a low rate of infection and skin complications. This technique is easy and there is no need for suture removal. Furthermore, there are no stitch marks and the cost of suturing is lower.

THE "GENUFLEX" SKIN CLOSURE FOR TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY

Orthopedics ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
pp. 1057-1058
Author(s):  
Thomas V King ◽  
Gary Kish ◽  
Robert E Eberhart ◽  
Jonathan L Holzaepfel
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Skin Closure ◽  
Total Knee

Prospective randomized trial of standard versus highly crosslinked tibial polyethylene in primary posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty

2019 ◽  
Vol 101-B (7_Supple_C) ◽  
pp. 33-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. F. Lachiewicz ◽  
J. A. O’Dell
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Posterior Stabilized ◽  
Function Score ◽  
Score Change ◽  
Osteolytic Lesions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Total Knee

Aims There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of alternative polyethylene bearings in modular, fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to compare standard polyethylene (SP) and highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLP) tibial liners in posterior-stabilized TKA, with osteolysis as the primary outcome and clinical results and the rate of re-operation as the secondary outcomes. Patients and Methods This is a single-surgeon, prospective randomized study involving one design of modular posterior-stabilized TKA. An analysis of 122 TKAs with an SP compression moulded liner and 123 with an XLP liner was performed, with a mean follow-up of six years (2 to 11). Patients were evaluated clinically using the Knee Society score, Lower Extremity Activity Score (LEAS), and the presence of an effusion, and standard radiographs were assessed for radiolucent lines and osteolytic lesions. Results Osteolysis was present in four TKAs (3.3%) in the SP group, and no knees in the XLP group (p = 0.06). There were no significant differences between the Knee Society total score, change in total score, knee function score, change in function score, LEAS, and change in LEAS in the two groups. There was a significant difference in the presence of an effusion (10/122 with SP liners, 1/123 with XLP liners; p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the rate of re-operation between the two groups (p = 0.36). There were no complications related to the XLP liner. Conclusion At this length of follow-up, there were no advantages and no complications related to the use of this XLP tibial liner. The presence of effusion and small osteolytic lesions was more frequent with SP than XLP liners, but of unknown clinical significance. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):33–39

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document