Trial reportJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2022
A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Comparison of Adhesive Wound Closure Devices in an Orthopaedic Patient.
Trial report in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05251064 (Randomized Controlled Trial of Wound Closure Techniques in Orthopaedic Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Randomized Controlled Trial of Wound Closure Techniques in Orthopaedic Surgery
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of suturing techniques on aberrant wound recovery after total hip arthroplasty : study protocol for a prospective, randomized trial (HIP-STITCH).Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Comparison between novel zipper device and conventional methods for skin closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
- Zip Stitch Adhesive Bandage for Maxillofacial Wounds - An Evaluative Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objective of this study was to compare Zip and Clozex with a typical closure using a running 3-0 Prolene suture.
methodsA prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in patients aged 18 years and older undergoing elective orthopaedic surgical procedures between 2019 and 2021. Patients were randomized to undergo skin closure using a running 3-0 Prolene suture, Zip, or Clozex. The length and location of incision, time to close, surgeon satisfaction, and complications were recorded. The Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale (SBSES) was used to assess cosmesis at 2 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Patient satisfaction and adverse events were also recorded.
resultsThirty-two patients were included in the analysis. Suture closure time was longer than Zip (266 vs 123 seconds; P = 0.02) and Clozex (266 vs 91 seconds; P = 0.005). SBSES scores were greater for Clozex at 2 weeks compared with suture (4.09 vs 2.8; P = 0.005). At 3 months, Clozex maintained greater scores compared with suture (3.82 vs 2.85; P = 0.023) and Zip (3.82 vs 3.0; P = 0.046).No differences were observed in patient satisfaction at any time points. DISCUSSION: Although patient satisfaction was similar across groups, wound closure times, SBSES scores, and total cost favor Clozex compared with Prolene suture or Zip. CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05251064.
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.