A Study of Comparisons of Normal Suturing and Adhesion of Skin Closure Tissues in Surgery of Inguinal Hernia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Suture material has evolved into advanced wound closure procedures such as skin staplers, skin glue, and sticky tapes. Based on the success of enhanced suturing procedures, patients may experience improved cosmesis, less postoperative discomfort, less wound infection, and a shorter stay in the hospital. The researchers wanted to see how adhesive glue compared to suture material for skin closure in hernia procedures. Closing wounds in an aesthetically acceptable manner has always been difficult. Surgeons have attempted to create “invisible scars” since the dawn of time. This, on the other hand, has always eluded me. ‘Scar’ is a surgeon’s signature. Technically, the skin closure procedure should be simple, acceptable, quick, and cost-effective. Sutures and staples are still the most commonly used procedures. The usage of GLUE, on the other hand, is becoming more common in clinical practise. With regard to time management, postoperative pain, ulcer problems, cosmesis, and cost-effectiveness, the authors compared all three procedures. Aim: The study aims to comparison of conventional suturing and tissue adhesive (2-octyl cyanoacrylate) for skin closure in inguinal hernia surgeries. Material and Method: There were 70 people in this study who underwent inguinal hernia surgery. Skin closure was performed on 35 patients with traditional suturing (3-0 ETHILON) and tissue glue on the remaining 35 patients (2-octyl cyanoacrylate). Postoperative discomfort, duration of skin closure, and scarring tests were all detected, and the findings were compared. In the General Surgery Department, a 2-year randomized controlled trial comparing tissue glue and wound-closing sutures following selection procedures was performed on 70 healthy patients. Results: The average skin closure time in the adhesive group was 1.521.444 minutes, while the average skin closure time in the suture group was 3.661.33 minutes. With a p value of 0.001, this difference is significant. The mean visual analogue value of the suture group was 4.5 ± 0.58, while the average skin group value was 2.38 ± 0.72. With a p value of <0.001, this value was very significant. The tissue glue group had less postoperative pain than other groups. At regular intervals, the postoperative scar was tested using a Vancouver scale. The average score for the suture group was 7.4 ± 0.4, while the average skin glue group was 1.9 ± 0.65. At p value of <0.001, these changes in effect were significant. Conclusion: In clean elective procedures, adhesive glue outperforms traditional suturing. It is a safe and successful form of skin closure that results in decreased postoperative pain and improved scar cosmesis. Staples are easier to use and take less time to apply than glue and stitches. In terms of post-operative discomfort, wound asepsis, cosmesis, and cost-effectiveness, skin glue delivers the best results.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».