Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026
Comparing contact dermatitis due to tissue adhesives in port-site closure.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile tissue adhesives are widely used in the closure of surgical incisions, contact dermatitis remains a poorly characterized complication. Dermabond
methodsThis was a single-center, intra-patient randomized controlled trial which included patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or robotic abdominal surgery. For each patient, DB was applied to incisions on one side of the abdomen and LB was applied to the contralateral side. The side for each glue was randomized by date of the month. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients experiencing contact dermatitis within 6 weeks postoperative period.
resultsOne hundred eighty patients were enrolled, and 1 was lost to follow up. Contact dermatitis occurred in 21 of 180 patients (11.7%). DB alone caused reactions in 3 patients (1.7%), LB alone in 1 patient (0.6%), and both adhesives in 17 patients (9.5%). The matched-pairs odds ratio for LB versus DB was 0.33 (95% CI 0.01-4.15, p = 0.63). A sensitivity analysis for patients lost to follow up did not change the results. 7 (33%) patients required treatment for contact dermatitis, all of whom had bilateral reactions.
conclusionContact dermatitis due to tissue adhesive was seen in 11.7% of patients; however, there was no statistically significant difference between the rates seen with DB and LB. The risks and benefits of tissue adhesive should be carefully considered when choosing to use these products in the closure of surgical incisions, and surgeons need to have a clear management algorithm for dermatitis should it occur. This risk does not seem to be mitigated by manufacturer, so adhesive choice may reasonably be guided by factors such as cost, availability, or institutional preference.
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.