Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Comparison of laparoscopic port site skin closure techniques (CLOSA): transcutaneous suturing versus subcuticular sutures versus adhesive strips: a prospective single-blinded randomized control trial.
Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Adhesive Strips vs. Sutures in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Non-inferiority Analysis of Surgical Site Infections.Cureus · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCosmesis is an essential aspect of laparoscopic surgery. Various methods of skin closure techniques have been described. We conducted a study to evaluate the cosmesis and patient satisfaction with the scars three months after laparoscopic surgery using transcutaneous suture (TS) vs. adhesive strips (AS) and subcuticular suturing (SS).
methodsA randomized, controlled, prospective study was conducted at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. The included patients were randomly assigned among the three arms. The time for skin closure was measured. Wounds were assessed till discharge, at 14 days, one month, and three months. Cosmesis was measured by the Hollander Wound evaluation scale (HWES) for each incision separately, and patient satisfaction by a 10- point Visual analog scale (VAS).
resultsOne hundred six patients were assessed for eligibility, and 90 patients were randomized. Three-month follow-up data was obtained from 83 patients (92.22%). Baseline characteristics were similar among the groups. Cosmetic outcome was assessed in 312 incisions across 83 patients, and 206 (66.03%) incisions had an HWE Score of 0, but there was no significant difference (p = 0.86). Patient satisfaction was highest in the TS group (TS = 1.29, SS = 1.79, AS = 2.04, p = 0.03). Time for skin closure was the least in the AS arm (41.4 secs, p = 0.00). Skin dehiscence was significantly more in the AS arm. Four (4.44%) patients had port site infections.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that skin closure by transcutaneous, subcuticular, or adhesive strip methods had comparable cosmetic outcomes at three months. However, the transcutaneous closure method showed better patient satisfaction and minimal post-operative complications.
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.