Trial reportDeutsches Arzteblatt international2021
Wound Closure After Port Implantation-A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Tissue Adhesive and Intracutaneous Suturing.
Trial report in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02551510 (Open, Randomized, Controlled Non-inferiority Trial to Compare Synthetic Tissue Adhesive and Skin Suture After Port Catheter Implantation With Reference to Cosmetic Result and Economy of Time at Equal Risk for Wound Infection), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Open, Randomized, Controlled Non-inferiority Trial to Compare Synthetic Tissue Adhesive and Skin Suture After Port Catheter Implantation With Reference to Cosmetic Result and Economy of Time at Equal Risk for Wound Infection
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Clinical Practice and Quality Control Guidelines for Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports in Cancer Patients (2024)].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Guideline
- Common and Uncommon Complications of Chest Port Implantation.Current oncology reports · 2025Review
- Clinical efficacy, postoperative complication risks, and parental satisfaction in pediatric patients receiving tension-reducing suture treatment for facial lacerations.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWound healing after pectoral port implantation is a major factor determining the success or failure of the procedure. Infection and wound dehiscence can endanger the functionality of the port system and impede chemotherapy. The cosmetic result is important for patient satisfaction as well.
methodsFrom August 2015 to July 2017, adult patients with an indication for port implantation were entered into a prospective, randomized and controlled single-center study. The skin incision was closed either with tissue adhesive or with an intracutaneous suture. The primary endpoints were the total score of the scar evaluated by the patient and the investigator on the POSAS scale (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale: 6 [normal skin] to 60 points), blinded assessment of photographic documentation by ten evaluating physicians, and the patient's reported quality of life. The calculation of case numbers was based only on the patients' overall POSAS assessment, which was tested for non-inferiority. The secondary endpoints were other complications (infection, dehiscence) and the duration of wound closure (trial registration number NCT02551510).
results156 patients (60 ± 13 years, 64% women) participated in the study. The patient-assessed total POSAS score of tissue adhesive revealed non-inferiority to suturing (adhesive 11.7 ± 5.8 vs. suture 10.1 ± 4.0, p for non-inferiority <0.001). Both the investigators in their POSAS assessments and the blinded physician evaluators in their assessment of photographically documented wounds rated wound closure by suturing better than closure with tissue adhesive. No significant differences were found between groups with respect to quality of life or the frequency of wound infection or dehiscence.
conclusionClosure of the upper cutaneous layer with tissue adhesive is a suitable and safe method of wound closure after port implantation.
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.