Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2015
A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Trial Assessing a Novel Lysine-Derived Urethane Adhesive in a Large Flap Surgical Procedure without Drains.
Trial report in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lysine-urethane-based tissue adhesion for mastectomy-an approach to reducing the seroma rate?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Trial
- Standards and Trends in Lipoabdominoplasty.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2020Review
- The Use of TissuGlu® Surgical Adhesive for Mastectomy With or Without Lymphonodectomy.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
- Can drains be avoided in lipo-abdominoplasty?Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a lysine-derived urethane adhesive as a noninvasive alternative to closed suction drains in a commonly performed large flap surgical procedure.
methodsOne hundred thirty subjects undergoing abdominoplasty at five centers were prospectively randomized to standard flap closure with surgical drains (Control group) or a lysine-derived urethane adhesive (Treatment group) without drains. The primary outcome measured was the number of post-operative procedures, including drain removals (as the event marking the use of a surgical drain) and needle aspirations. Secondary endpoints included total wound drainage, cumulative days of treatment, and days to drain removal. A patient questionnaire evaluating quality of life measures was also administered.
resultsSubjects in the Treatment group required significantly fewer post-operative procedures compared to the Control group (1.8 ± 3.8 vs. 2.4 ± 1.2 procedures; p < 0.0001) and fewer cumulative days of treatment (1.6 ± 0.4 vs. 7.3 ± 3.3; p < 0.0001). A procedure to address fluid accumulation was required for only 27.3 % of the subjects in the Treatment group versus 100 % of Control group, which by study design required the use of drains. The mean duration of use of indwelling surgical drains for the Control group was 6.9 ± 3.3 days. All fluid collections treated with percutaneous aspiration were resolved and there were no unanticipated adverse events.
conclusionThe results of the study support that the use of a lysine-derived urethane adhesive is a safe and effective alternative to drains in patients undergoing a common large flap surgical procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.