30.01.2013 Views

Abstracts Posters SICOT-SOF meeting Gothenburg 2010 _2_

Abstracts Posters SICOT-SOF meeting Gothenburg 2010 _2_

Abstracts Posters SICOT-SOF meeting Gothenburg 2010 _2_

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Poster<br />

Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip<br />

Abstract number: 26509<br />

TISSUE ADHESIVE AS AN ADJUVANT TO WOUND CLOSURE IN TOTAL HIP<br />

REPLACEMENT<br />

Saravana Vail KARUPPIAH, Sophie GRAY, Scott POPHAM<br />

Grampian University Hospital NHS Trust, Aberdeen (UNITED KINGDOM)<br />

Background: Post operative in total hip replacement may require repeated change of<br />

dressing secondary to wound leak. Using a simple tissue adhesive may help provide<br />

an inital seal to the wound improving wound care. Objective: This study sought to<br />

assess the use of tissue adhesive on wound closure in hip replacement patients.<br />

Methods: Patients undergoing hip replacement were randomly selected to receive<br />

either subcuticular monocryl stitch, tissue adhesive and tegaderm dressing (Group I),<br />

or subcuticular monocryl stitch and tegaderm dressing only (Group II) for wound<br />

closure. Wounds were inspected over the following 5 days and documented how<br />

many dressing changes were required. Both groups were assessed using Hollander<br />

score and patient satisfaction score at 3 month follow-up. Results: 50 patients<br />

participated in this study; 25 received adhesive and 25 received no adhesive. At 5<br />

days post operatively, patients in Group I required minimum dressing change<br />

(average 0.22) as compared to patients in Group II a minimum of 2 dressing change<br />

(average 3.4). 70% of patients in Group I required no dressing changes as opposed<br />

to 20% of patients in Group II. There was no difference in the cosmetic appearance<br />

of scars, Hollander scores were similar at an average of 4.5 (range 0-6) in both<br />

groups. Patient satisfaction (range 0-10) was higher (score 9) in Group I as opposed<br />

to Group II (score 7) (p

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!