• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.143-150
• /
• 2011

Purpose: The object of this study is to compare the patient satisfaction in the view of scarring, cost, and hospital stay between the conventional suture method and a method using Histoacryl$^{(R)}$ (2-N-butylcyanoacrylate) adhesive for treating facial lacerations in the emergency department. Method: This study is a randomized prospective trial, which was conducted from December 2009 to January 2010. The participants include 109 patients who visited the emergency room in Deajon Eulji Medical Center. The ages ranged from 1 to 59 (mean age of 18.7), and all had facial lacerations of less than 3 cm. In order to treat the facial lacerations, an emergency medicine doctor used tissue adhesive (2-N-butylcyanoacrylate, Histoacryl$^{(R)}$) for 41 patients in the experimental group, and a plastic surgeon performed conventional suturing for 68 patients in the control group. The ER-stay and the primary treatment fee were compared in the two groups, and the scarring was evaluated 10 to 11 months from suturing by using the Modified Hollander Method and the 10-cm scaled VAS (visual analogue scale: score 0=no scar, score 10=very severe scar) Result: The ER stay was 76 minutes for the experimental group and 107 minutes for the control group, showing that statistically significantly less time of 31 minutes was taken in the experimental group. The cost of the experimental group was 40000 won (50.1%) more expensive than the control group, with an average cost of 121900 won for the experimental group and 81200 won for the control group. As for scar evaluation, 10.56 months after suturing, the experimental group showed a better result with a score of 2.6 compared to a score of 3.4 in the control group; however, this difference was not statistically significant ($p$ <0.05). As to a detailed evaluation of scar characteristics, the experimental group had a statistically significantly better result in scar elevation, with a score of 0.6 compared to a score of 1.65 for the control group. Conclusion: If appropriate patients are selected, the method using tissue adhesive directly applied by an EM doctor not only decreases ER stay but also creates similar patients satisfaction, with statistically better result in scar elevation, compared to the conventional suture method; thus, ultimately general patient satisfaction is increased.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.19-23
• /
• 2005

Tissue adhesives have gained popularity for quicker and painless closure of lacerations. The use of tissue glue is currently popular for the closure of superficial lacerations, especially in children. Histoacryl $Blue^{(R)}$(2-N-butylcyanoacrylate) is a topical wound closure that precludes the need for foreign bodies to close wounds. The purpose of this study was to compare the applications of Histoacryl $Blue^{(R)}$(HAB) and conventional suture, regarding cosmetic outcome. To compare the short term and long term results of various repair methods, we designed the prospective, randomized, blind study. Patients with laceration undergoing repair were randomly allocated to conventional suture, subcutaneous suture plus HAB, and HAB only groups. The exclusion criterions were large wound that require large tension for repair or avulsion wound. An independent, blinded observer assessed cosmetic result at 7-10 days after repair and 3-9 months postoperatively. Physician's satisfaction with wound appearance was recorded on 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale(VAS)(0=worst, 100=best). The difference in VAS score between conventional suture method and subcutaneous suture plus HAB methods were not significant. Tissue glue being easy to use with no complications and still resulting in equivalent cosmetic outcomes has several benefits. Especially in the case of children, the wound closure with Histoacryl $Blue^{(R)}$ could be a good alternative for repair of laceration in emergency room.