Abstract: Octyl-2-Cyanoacrylate and Adhesive Mesh Closure System Versus Subcuticular Suture Closure in Reduction Mammoplasty: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An ideal wound closure system is one that is effective, consistent, and efficient. The commonly-used subcuticular suture is time-consuming, operator-dependent, and inflammatory in nature. Recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of octyl-2-cyanoacrylate and mesh system (Dermabond Prineo, Ethicon, Inc.) in the closure of surgical wounds. This study compared the use of Prineo to subcuticular suture closure in patients undergoing reduction mammoplasty. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind study of patients undergoing bilateral reduction mammoplasty was performed. Power analysis was done to determine the minimum sample size of seven breasts per group. Each breast per patient was randomized to layered closure with Prineo or subcuticular sutures for the final layer. The incision length and time to closure were measured and recorded for each breast. Incisions were assessed at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year for scar quality and complications. Subjects completed the Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) for each breast and two blinded plastic surgeons evaluated scar quality using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) at each time point. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients participated in the study. On average, Prineo closure took 58.38 seconds (2.50 s/cm) while subcuticular closure took 444.76 seconds (18.94 s/cm). Prineo closure was approximately 6.8 times faster (p=0.000) than subcuticular closure, saving an average of 6.4 minutes per incision. VSS scores were significantly better in patients with Prineo closure at 2 weeks (p=0.026), although there was no difference in POSAS and VSS scores at all other time points. No differences were found in wound complication or infection rates between the two groups and no adverse reactions were observed in either group. Cost analysis of our results estimated an average cost saving of approximately $127.75 per surgery when Prineo was used instead of subcuticular suture. CONCLUSION: In reduction mammoplasty, Prineo closure results in equivalent scar quality and lower operative cost without increased complications when compared to subcuticular closure. The Prineo system is significantly faster than subcuticular closure and represents an effective, consistent, and efficient alternative to standard suture techniques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".