Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial

Background: Both subcuticular suturing and stapler closure are used for skin closure. However, the superiority of one over the other is yet to be established clearly. Aims: This study compares the efficacy of skin closure technique by stapler and subcuticular suture in patients undergoing Lichtenste...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Sathasivam Sureshkumar [verfasserIn] Datta Souraja [verfasserIn] Elangovan Archana [verfasserIn] Sahla Sathar [verfasserIn] Thulasingam Mahalakshmy [verfasserIn] Chinnakali Palanivel [verfasserIn] Vikram Kate [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Schlagwörter:	patient satisfaction postoperative wound pain skin closure visual analog scale wound cosmesis

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research - Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2018, 7(2020), 1, Seite 27-31
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:7 ; year:2020 ; number:1 ; pages:27-31

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ045733562

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ045733562
003	DE-627
005	20230308095020.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ045733562
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJa53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	0		\|a Sathasivam Sureshkumar \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial
264		1	\|c 2020
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Background: Both subcuticular suturing and stapler closure are used for skin closure. However, the superiority of one over the other is yet to be established clearly. Aims: This study compares the efficacy of skin closure technique by stapler and subcuticular suture in patients undergoing Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Methods: Elective inguinal hernia repair patients were randomized to undergo skin closure using either subcuticular sutures or staplers. Skin closure time in minutes, postoperative wound site pain using the Visual Analog Scale, wound cosmesis and scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and patient satisfaction using the Likert scale were assessed. Results: A total of 38 patients with inguinal hernia were included: 20 in subcuticular suture group and 18 in stapler group. The scar outcomes assessed by patients (3.05 ± 1.83 vs. 4.94 ± 2.54; P = 0.0013) and observers (2.83 ± 0.98 vs. 4.44 ± 1.67; P = 0.0105) were significantly better in the subcuticular group. The time taken for skin closure was significantly longer in the suture group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative wound pain (P = 0.65), patient satisfaction (P = 0.238), and outcome of wound healing (P = 0.900). Conclusion: The cosmetic outcome of skin closure with subcuticular suture was better. Time taken for skin closure using staplers was shorter compared to suturing. Postoperative wound pain, patient satisfaction, and wound healing were similar between the two groups.
650		4	\|a patient satisfaction
650		4	\|a postoperative wound pain
650		4	\|a skin closure
650		4	\|a visual analog scale
650		4	\|a wound cosmesis
653		0	\|a Medicine
653		0	\|a R
700	0		\|a Datta Souraja \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Elangovan Archana \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Sahla Sathar \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Thulasingam Mahalakshmy \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Chinnakali Palanivel \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Vikram Kate \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research \|d Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2018 \|g 7(2020), 1, Seite 27-31 \|w (DE-627)1693123665 \|x 23500298 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:7 \|g year:2020 \|g number:1 \|g pages:27-31
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/a53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.ijamhrjournal.org/article.asp?issn=2349-4220;year=2020;volume=7;issue=1;spage=27;epage=31;aulast=Sureshkumar \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2349-4220 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2350-0298 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 7 \|j 2020 \|e 1 \|h 27-31

Indexfelder

author_variant	s s ss d s ds e a ea s s ss t m tm c p cp v k vk
matchkey_str	article:23500298:2020----::oprsnfknlsrtcnqeihtpeaductclruuenainsihnunlenanegigihesenesofem
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ045733562 (DE-599)DOAJa53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sathasivam Sureshkumar verfasserin aut Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Both subcuticular suturing and stapler closure are used for skin closure. However, the superiority of one over the other is yet to be established clearly. Aims: This study compares the efficacy of skin closure technique by stapler and subcuticular suture in patients undergoing Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Methods: Elective inguinal hernia repair patients were randomized to undergo skin closure using either subcuticular sutures or staplers. Skin closure time in minutes, postoperative wound site pain using the Visual Analog Scale, wound cosmesis and scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and patient satisfaction using the Likert scale were assessed. Results: A total of 38 patients with inguinal hernia were included: 20 in subcuticular suture group and 18 in stapler group. The scar outcomes assessed by patients (3.05 ± 1.83 vs. 4.94 ± 2.54; P = 0.0013) and observers (2.83 ± 0.98 vs. 4.44 ± 1.67; P = 0.0105) were significantly better in the subcuticular group. The time taken for skin closure was significantly longer in the suture group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative wound pain (P = 0.65), patient satisfaction (P = 0.238), and outcome of wound healing (P = 0.900). Conclusion: The cosmetic outcome of skin closure with subcuticular suture was better. Time taken for skin closure using staplers was shorter compared to suturing. Postoperative wound pain, patient satisfaction, and wound healing were similar between the two groups. patient satisfaction postoperative wound pain skin closure visual analog scale wound cosmesis Medicine R Datta Souraja verfasserin aut Elangovan Archana verfasserin aut Sahla Sathar verfasserin aut Thulasingam Mahalakshmy verfasserin aut Chinnakali Palanivel verfasserin aut Vikram Kate verfasserin aut In International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2018 7(2020), 1, Seite 27-31 (DE-627)1693123665 23500298 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:1 pages:27-31 https://doi.org/10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3 kostenfrei http://www.ijamhrjournal.org/article.asp?issn=2349-4220;year=2020;volume=7;issue=1;spage=27;epage=31;aulast=Sureshkumar kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2349-4220 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2350-0298 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2020 1 27-31
spelling	10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ045733562 (DE-599)DOAJa53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sathasivam Sureshkumar verfasserin aut Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Both subcuticular suturing and stapler closure are used for skin closure. However, the superiority of one over the other is yet to be established clearly. Aims: This study compares the efficacy of skin closure technique by stapler and subcuticular suture in patients undergoing Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Methods: Elective inguinal hernia repair patients were randomized to undergo skin closure using either subcuticular sutures or staplers. Skin closure time in minutes, postoperative wound site pain using the Visual Analog Scale, wound cosmesis and scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and patient satisfaction using the Likert scale were assessed. Results: A total of 38 patients with inguinal hernia were included: 20 in subcuticular suture group and 18 in stapler group. The scar outcomes assessed by patients (3.05 ± 1.83 vs. 4.94 ± 2.54; P = 0.0013) and observers (2.83 ± 0.98 vs. 4.44 ± 1.67; P = 0.0105) were significantly better in the subcuticular group. The time taken for skin closure was significantly longer in the suture group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative wound pain (P = 0.65), patient satisfaction (P = 0.238), and outcome of wound healing (P = 0.900). Conclusion: The cosmetic outcome of skin closure with subcuticular suture was better. Time taken for skin closure using staplers was shorter compared to suturing. Postoperative wound pain, patient satisfaction, and wound healing were similar between the two groups. patient satisfaction postoperative wound pain skin closure visual analog scale wound cosmesis Medicine R Datta Souraja verfasserin aut Elangovan Archana verfasserin aut Sahla Sathar verfasserin aut Thulasingam Mahalakshmy verfasserin aut Chinnakali Palanivel verfasserin aut Vikram Kate verfasserin aut In International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2018 7(2020), 1, Seite 27-31 (DE-627)1693123665 23500298 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:1 pages:27-31 https://doi.org/10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3 kostenfrei http://www.ijamhrjournal.org/article.asp?issn=2349-4220;year=2020;volume=7;issue=1;spage=27;epage=31;aulast=Sureshkumar kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2349-4220 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2350-0298 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2020 1 27-31
allfields_unstemmed	10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ045733562 (DE-599)DOAJa53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sathasivam Sureshkumar verfasserin aut Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Both subcuticular suturing and stapler closure are used for skin closure. However, the superiority of one over the other is yet to be established clearly. Aims: This study compares the efficacy of skin closure technique by stapler and subcuticular suture in patients undergoing Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Methods: Elective inguinal hernia repair patients were randomized to undergo skin closure using either subcuticular sutures or staplers. Skin closure time in minutes, postoperative wound site pain using the Visual Analog Scale, wound cosmesis and scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and patient satisfaction using the Likert scale were assessed. Results: A total of 38 patients with inguinal hernia were included: 20 in subcuticular suture group and 18 in stapler group. The scar outcomes assessed by patients (3.05 ± 1.83 vs. 4.94 ± 2.54; P = 0.0013) and observers (2.83 ± 0.98 vs. 4.44 ± 1.67; P = 0.0105) were significantly better in the subcuticular group. The time taken for skin closure was significantly longer in the suture group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative wound pain (P = 0.65), patient satisfaction (P = 0.238), and outcome of wound healing (P = 0.900). Conclusion: The cosmetic outcome of skin closure with subcuticular suture was better. Time taken for skin closure using staplers was shorter compared to suturing. Postoperative wound pain, patient satisfaction, and wound healing were similar between the two groups. patient satisfaction postoperative wound pain skin closure visual analog scale wound cosmesis Medicine R Datta Souraja verfasserin aut Elangovan Archana verfasserin aut Sahla Sathar verfasserin aut Thulasingam Mahalakshmy verfasserin aut Chinnakali Palanivel verfasserin aut Vikram Kate verfasserin aut In International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2018 7(2020), 1, Seite 27-31 (DE-627)1693123665 23500298 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:1 pages:27-31 https://doi.org/10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3 kostenfrei http://www.ijamhrjournal.org/article.asp?issn=2349-4220;year=2020;volume=7;issue=1;spage=27;epage=31;aulast=Sureshkumar kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2349-4220 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2350-0298 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2020 1 27-31
allfieldsGer	10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ045733562 (DE-599)DOAJa53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sathasivam Sureshkumar verfasserin aut Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Both subcuticular suturing and stapler closure are used for skin closure. However, the superiority of one over the other is yet to be established clearly. Aims: This study compares the efficacy of skin closure technique by stapler and subcuticular suture in patients undergoing Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Methods: Elective inguinal hernia repair patients were randomized to undergo skin closure using either subcuticular sutures or staplers. Skin closure time in minutes, postoperative wound site pain using the Visual Analog Scale, wound cosmesis and scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and patient satisfaction using the Likert scale were assessed. Results: A total of 38 patients with inguinal hernia were included: 20 in subcuticular suture group and 18 in stapler group. The scar outcomes assessed by patients (3.05 ± 1.83 vs. 4.94 ± 2.54; P = 0.0013) and observers (2.83 ± 0.98 vs. 4.44 ± 1.67; P = 0.0105) were significantly better in the subcuticular group. The time taken for skin closure was significantly longer in the suture group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative wound pain (P = 0.65), patient satisfaction (P = 0.238), and outcome of wound healing (P = 0.900). Conclusion: The cosmetic outcome of skin closure with subcuticular suture was better. Time taken for skin closure using staplers was shorter compared to suturing. Postoperative wound pain, patient satisfaction, and wound healing were similar between the two groups. patient satisfaction postoperative wound pain skin closure visual analog scale wound cosmesis Medicine R Datta Souraja verfasserin aut Elangovan Archana verfasserin aut Sahla Sathar verfasserin aut Thulasingam Mahalakshmy verfasserin aut Chinnakali Palanivel verfasserin aut Vikram Kate verfasserin aut In International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2018 7(2020), 1, Seite 27-31 (DE-627)1693123665 23500298 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:1 pages:27-31 https://doi.org/10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3 kostenfrei http://www.ijamhrjournal.org/article.asp?issn=2349-4220;year=2020;volume=7;issue=1;spage=27;epage=31;aulast=Sureshkumar kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2349-4220 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2350-0298 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2020 1 27-31
allfieldsSound	10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ045733562 (DE-599)DOAJa53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sathasivam Sureshkumar verfasserin aut Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Both subcuticular suturing and stapler closure are used for skin closure. However, the superiority of one over the other is yet to be established clearly. Aims: This study compares the efficacy of skin closure technique by stapler and subcuticular suture in patients undergoing Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Methods: Elective inguinal hernia repair patients were randomized to undergo skin closure using either subcuticular sutures or staplers. Skin closure time in minutes, postoperative wound site pain using the Visual Analog Scale, wound cosmesis and scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and patient satisfaction using the Likert scale were assessed. Results: A total of 38 patients with inguinal hernia were included: 20 in subcuticular suture group and 18 in stapler group. The scar outcomes assessed by patients (3.05 ± 1.83 vs. 4.94 ± 2.54; P = 0.0013) and observers (2.83 ± 0.98 vs. 4.44 ± 1.67; P = 0.0105) were significantly better in the subcuticular group. The time taken for skin closure was significantly longer in the suture group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative wound pain (P = 0.65), patient satisfaction (P = 0.238), and outcome of wound healing (P = 0.900). Conclusion: The cosmetic outcome of skin closure with subcuticular suture was better. Time taken for skin closure using staplers was shorter compared to suturing. Postoperative wound pain, patient satisfaction, and wound healing were similar between the two groups. patient satisfaction postoperative wound pain skin closure visual analog scale wound cosmesis Medicine R Datta Souraja verfasserin aut Elangovan Archana verfasserin aut Sahla Sathar verfasserin aut Thulasingam Mahalakshmy verfasserin aut Chinnakali Palanivel verfasserin aut Vikram Kate verfasserin aut In International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2018 7(2020), 1, Seite 27-31 (DE-627)1693123665 23500298 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:1 pages:27-31 https://doi.org/10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3 kostenfrei http://www.ijamhrjournal.org/article.asp?issn=2349-4220;year=2020;volume=7;issue=1;spage=27;epage=31;aulast=Sureshkumar kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2349-4220 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2350-0298 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2020 1 27-31
language	English
source	In International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research 7(2020), 1, Seite 27-31 volume:7 year:2020 number:1 pages:27-31
sourceStr	In International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research 7(2020), 1, Seite 27-31 volume:7 year:2020 number:1 pages:27-31
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	patient satisfaction postoperative wound pain skin closure visual analog scale wound cosmesis Medicine R
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Sathasivam Sureshkumar @@aut@@ Datta Souraja @@aut@@ Elangovan Archana @@aut@@ Sahla Sathar @@aut@@ Thulasingam Mahalakshmy @@aut@@ Chinnakali Palanivel @@aut@@ Vikram Kate @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	1693123665
id	DOAJ045733562
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ045733562</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308095020.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ045733562</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJa53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sathasivam Sureshkumar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Both subcuticular suturing and stapler closure are used for skin closure. However, the superiority of one over the other is yet to be established clearly. Aims: This study compares the efficacy of skin closure technique by stapler and subcuticular suture in patients undergoing Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Methods: Elective inguinal hernia repair patients were randomized to undergo skin closure using either subcuticular sutures or staplers. Skin closure time in minutes, postoperative wound site pain using the Visual Analog Scale, wound cosmesis and scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and patient satisfaction using the Likert scale were assessed. Results: A total of 38 patients with inguinal hernia were included: 20 in subcuticular suture group and 18 in stapler group. The scar outcomes assessed by patients (3.05 ± 1.83 vs. 4.94 ± 2.54; P = 0.0013) and observers (2.83 ± 0.98 vs. 4.44 ± 1.67; P = 0.0105) were significantly better in the subcuticular group. The time taken for skin closure was significantly longer in the suture group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative wound pain (P = 0.65), patient satisfaction (P = 0.238), and outcome of wound healing (P = 0.900). Conclusion: The cosmetic outcome of skin closure with subcuticular suture was better. Time taken for skin closure using staplers was shorter compared to suturing. Postoperative wound pain, patient satisfaction, and wound healing were similar between the two groups.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">patient satisfaction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">postoperative wound pain</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">skin closure</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">visual analog scale</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">wound cosmesis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Datta Souraja</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Elangovan Archana</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sahla Sathar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Thulasingam Mahalakshmy</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chinnakali Palanivel</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vikram Kate</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2018</subfield><subfield code="g">7(2020), 1, Seite 27-31</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1693123665</subfield><subfield code="x">23500298</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:7</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:27-31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/a53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.ijamhrjournal.org/article.asp?issn=2349-4220;year=2020;volume=7;issue=1;spage=27;epage=31;aulast=Sureshkumar</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2349-4220</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2350-0298</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">7</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">27-31</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Sathasivam Sureshkumar
spellingShingle	Sathasivam Sureshkumar misc patient satisfaction misc postoperative wound pain misc skin closure misc visual analog scale misc wound cosmesis misc Medicine misc R Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial
authorStr	Sathasivam Sureshkumar
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)1693123665
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	23500298
topic_title	Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial patient satisfaction postoperative wound pain skin closure visual analog scale wound cosmesis
topic	misc patient satisfaction misc postoperative wound pain misc skin closure misc visual analog scale misc wound cosmesis misc Medicine misc R
topic_unstemmed	misc patient satisfaction misc postoperative wound pain misc skin closure misc visual analog scale misc wound cosmesis misc Medicine misc R
topic_browse	misc patient satisfaction misc postoperative wound pain misc skin closure misc visual analog scale misc wound cosmesis misc Medicine misc R
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research
hierarchy_parent_id	1693123665
hierarchy_top_title	International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)1693123665
title	Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ045733562 (DE-599)DOAJa53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3
title_full	Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial
author_sort	Sathasivam Sureshkumar
journal	International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research
journalStr	International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2020
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	27
author_browse	Sathasivam Sureshkumar Datta Souraja Elangovan Archana Sahla Sathar Thulasingam Mahalakshmy Chinnakali Palanivel Vikram Kate
container_volume	7
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Sathasivam Sureshkumar
doi_str_mv	10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – an open-label randomized controlled trial
title_auth	Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial
abstract	Background: Both subcuticular suturing and stapler closure are used for skin closure. However, the superiority of one over the other is yet to be established clearly. Aims: This study compares the efficacy of skin closure technique by stapler and subcuticular suture in patients undergoing Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Methods: Elective inguinal hernia repair patients were randomized to undergo skin closure using either subcuticular sutures or staplers. Skin closure time in minutes, postoperative wound site pain using the Visual Analog Scale, wound cosmesis and scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and patient satisfaction using the Likert scale were assessed. Results: A total of 38 patients with inguinal hernia were included: 20 in subcuticular suture group and 18 in stapler group. The scar outcomes assessed by patients (3.05 ± 1.83 vs. 4.94 ± 2.54; P = 0.0013) and observers (2.83 ± 0.98 vs. 4.44 ± 1.67; P = 0.0105) were significantly better in the subcuticular group. The time taken for skin closure was significantly longer in the suture group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative wound pain (P = 0.65), patient satisfaction (P = 0.238), and outcome of wound healing (P = 0.900). Conclusion: The cosmetic outcome of skin closure with subcuticular suture was better. Time taken for skin closure using staplers was shorter compared to suturing. Postoperative wound pain, patient satisfaction, and wound healing were similar between the two groups.
abstractGer	Background: Both subcuticular suturing and stapler closure are used for skin closure. However, the superiority of one over the other is yet to be established clearly. Aims: This study compares the efficacy of skin closure technique by stapler and subcuticular suture in patients undergoing Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Methods: Elective inguinal hernia repair patients were randomized to undergo skin closure using either subcuticular sutures or staplers. Skin closure time in minutes, postoperative wound site pain using the Visual Analog Scale, wound cosmesis and scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and patient satisfaction using the Likert scale were assessed. Results: A total of 38 patients with inguinal hernia were included: 20 in subcuticular suture group and 18 in stapler group. The scar outcomes assessed by patients (3.05 ± 1.83 vs. 4.94 ± 2.54; P = 0.0013) and observers (2.83 ± 0.98 vs. 4.44 ± 1.67; P = 0.0105) were significantly better in the subcuticular group. The time taken for skin closure was significantly longer in the suture group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative wound pain (P = 0.65), patient satisfaction (P = 0.238), and outcome of wound healing (P = 0.900). Conclusion: The cosmetic outcome of skin closure with subcuticular suture was better. Time taken for skin closure using staplers was shorter compared to suturing. Postoperative wound pain, patient satisfaction, and wound healing were similar between the two groups.
abstract_unstemmed	Background: Both subcuticular suturing and stapler closure are used for skin closure. However, the superiority of one over the other is yet to be established clearly. Aims: This study compares the efficacy of skin closure technique by stapler and subcuticular suture in patients undergoing Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Methods: Elective inguinal hernia repair patients were randomized to undergo skin closure using either subcuticular sutures or staplers. Skin closure time in minutes, postoperative wound site pain using the Visual Analog Scale, wound cosmesis and scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and patient satisfaction using the Likert scale were assessed. Results: A total of 38 patients with inguinal hernia were included: 20 in subcuticular suture group and 18 in stapler group. The scar outcomes assessed by patients (3.05 ± 1.83 vs. 4.94 ± 2.54; P = 0.0013) and observers (2.83 ± 0.98 vs. 4.44 ± 1.67; P = 0.0105) were significantly better in the subcuticular group. The time taken for skin closure was significantly longer in the suture group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative wound pain (P = 0.65), patient satisfaction (P = 0.238), and outcome of wound healing (P = 0.900). Conclusion: The cosmetic outcome of skin closure with subcuticular suture was better. Time taken for skin closure using staplers was shorter compared to suturing. Postoperative wound pain, patient satisfaction, and wound healing were similar between the two groups.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial
url	https://doi.org/10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20 https://doaj.org/article/a53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3 http://www.ijamhrjournal.org/article.asp?issn=2349-4220;year=2020;volume=7;issue=1;spage=27;epage=31;aulast=Sureshkumar https://doaj.org/toc/2349-4220 https://doaj.org/toc/2350-0298
remote_bool	true
author2	Datta Souraja Elangovan Archana Sahla Sathar Thulasingam Mahalakshmy Chinnakali Palanivel Vikram Kate
author2Str	Datta Souraja Elangovan Archana Sahla Sathar Thulasingam Mahalakshmy Chinnakali Palanivel Vikram Kate
ppnlink	1693123665
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20
up_date	2024-07-03T16:42:30.117Z
_version_	1803576882094931968
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ045733562</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308095020.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ045733562</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJa53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sathasivam Sureshkumar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Both subcuticular suturing and stapler closure are used for skin closure. However, the superiority of one over the other is yet to be established clearly. Aims: This study compares the efficacy of skin closure technique by stapler and subcuticular suture in patients undergoing Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Methods: Elective inguinal hernia repair patients were randomized to undergo skin closure using either subcuticular sutures or staplers. Skin closure time in minutes, postoperative wound site pain using the Visual Analog Scale, wound cosmesis and scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and patient satisfaction using the Likert scale were assessed. Results: A total of 38 patients with inguinal hernia were included: 20 in subcuticular suture group and 18 in stapler group. The scar outcomes assessed by patients (3.05 ± 1.83 vs. 4.94 ± 2.54; P = 0.0013) and observers (2.83 ± 0.98 vs. 4.44 ± 1.67; P = 0.0105) were significantly better in the subcuticular group. The time taken for skin closure was significantly longer in the suture group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative wound pain (P = 0.65), patient satisfaction (P = 0.238), and outcome of wound healing (P = 0.900). Conclusion: The cosmetic outcome of skin closure with subcuticular suture was better. Time taken for skin closure using staplers was shorter compared to suturing. Postoperative wound pain, patient satisfaction, and wound healing were similar between the two groups.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">patient satisfaction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">postoperative wound pain</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">skin closure</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">visual analog scale</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">wound cosmesis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Datta Souraja</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Elangovan Archana</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sahla Sathar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Thulasingam Mahalakshmy</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chinnakali Palanivel</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vikram Kate</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2018</subfield><subfield code="g">7(2020), 1, Seite 27-31</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1693123665</subfield><subfield code="x">23500298</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:7</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:27-31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_27_20</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/a53f3bc4ab944ce5b50576cf01cbb0b3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.ijamhrjournal.org/article.asp?issn=2349-4220;year=2020;volume=7;issue=1;spage=27;epage=31;aulast=Sureshkumar</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2349-4220</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2350-0298</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">7</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">27-31</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4020357

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Comparison of skin closure technique with stapler and subcuticular suture in patients with inguinal hernia undergoing lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair – An open-label randomized controlled trial

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?