Strauss Eric J, Weil Wayne M, Jordan Charles, Paksima Nader
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY 10016, USA.
J Hand Surg Am. 2008 Feb;33(2):250-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2007.10.008.
To prospectively compare the efficacy of 2-octylcyanoacrylate (Dermabond; Ethicon Inc, Somerville, NJ) with standard suture repair in the management of nail bed lacerations.
Forty consecutive patients with acute nail bed lacerations were enrolled in this study. Eighteen patients were randomized to nail bed repair using Dermabond (2-octylcyanoacrylate), and 22 were randomized to standard repair using 6-0 chromic suture. At presentation, demographic information and laceration characteristics were recorded. The time required for nail bed laceration repair with each method was documented, and cosmetic and functional outcomes were assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months after injury. Comparisons between treatment groups were made using unpaired Student's t-tests.
The Dermabond repair group was composed of 10 males and 8 females with a mean age of 32.3 years. The suture repair group was composed of 17 males and 5 females with a mean age of 29.5 years. The mean follow-up was 5.1 months (range 4-11 months) and 4.8 months (range 4-11 months) for the Dermabond group and suture group, respectively. There was no difference between the two treatment groups with respect to age, comorbidities, and length of follow-up (p>.05). The average time required for nail bed repair using Dermabond was 9.5 minutes, which was significantly less than that required for suture repair (27.8 minutes) (p<.0003). At each follow-up time point, there was no statistical difference in physician-judged cosmesis, patient-perceived cosmetic outcome, pain, or functional ability between the Dermabond and suture treatment cohorts (p>.05).
Nail bed repair performed using Dermabond is significantly faster than suture repair, and it provides similar cosmetic and functional results. In the management of acute nail bed lacerations, Dermabond is an efficient and effective repair technique.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic I.
前瞻性比较2-辛基氰基丙烯酸酯(德莫邦;强生公司,新泽西州萨默维尔)与标准缝合修复在甲床裂伤处理中的疗效。
本研究纳入40例连续的急性甲床裂伤患者。18例患者随机接受使用德莫邦(2-辛基氰基丙烯酸酯)进行甲床修复,22例随机接受使用6-0铬制缝线进行标准修复。就诊时,记录人口统计学信息和裂伤特征。记录每种方法修复甲床裂伤所需的时间,并在受伤后1、3和6个月评估美容和功能结果。使用非配对学生t检验对治疗组之间进行比较。
德莫邦修复组由10名男性和8名女性组成,平均年龄32.3岁。缝合修复组由17名男性和5名女性组成,平均年龄29.5岁。德莫邦组和缝合组的平均随访时间分别为5.1个月(范围4-11个月)和4.8个月(范围4-11个月)。在年龄、合并症和随访时间方面,两个治疗组之间没有差异(p>0.05)。使用德莫邦修复甲床平均所需时间为9.5分钟,明显少于缝合修复所需的时间(27.8分钟)(p<0.0003)。在每个随访时间点,德莫邦治疗组和缝合治疗组在医生判断的美容效果、患者感知的美容结果、疼痛或功能能力方面没有统计学差异(p>0.05)。
使用德莫邦进行甲床修复明显比缝合修复更快,并且提供相似的美容和功能结果。在急性甲床裂伤的处理中,德莫邦是一种高效有效的修复技术。
研究类型/证据水平:治疗性I级。