A Comparison of Monosyn and Monocryl Sutures in Surgical Wounds
NCT ID: NCT00731913
Last Updated: 2015-03-19
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
48 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2007-07-31
2008-03-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Antiseptic-Coated Sutures and Pancreatic Fistula Risk After Pancreatoduodenectomy
NCT07318493
PMCF-study Using Novosyn® Quick Suture Material for Skin Closure
NCT02680886
Vicryl Rapide Versus Nonabsorbable Suture
NCT04056013
Comparison of Cosmetic Outcomes of Lacerations Repaired Using Absorbable Versus Non-absorbable Sutures
NCT00933829
Prospective, International Monosyn® Quick - Non Interventional Study
NCT03355001
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The fundamental principles of wound closure have changed little over 4,000 years. Successful closure of wound involves surgical techniques coupled with knowledge of the physical characteristics and handling of the suture and needle. The selection of proper suture material in closing any surgical defect is important in wound healing, minimizing infection, and achieving optimal cosmetic and functional results.
A great deal of progress has been made since Egyptian times with regard to suture materials and manufacturing processes. Today, sutures are available with a wide variety of characteristics, configuration, manipulability, coefficient of friction, solubility, strength, and immunogenic properties. Yet, sutures are currently rather crudely classified based on a numeric scale according to diameter and tensile strength; descending from 10 to 1, and then descending again from 1-0 to 12-0. This study aims to explore the factors that are important to a surgeon when choosing sutures via evaluating surgeon preference for two types of synthetic, absorbable, monofilament sutures: Monosyn and Monocryl. We hope to initiate a more nuanced exploration of how suture characteristics influence surgeon preference, beyond filament type and size, and how makers of suture may better report and represent these factors.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
CASE_CONTROL
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
1
Subjects with skin lesions requiring surgical excision and repair. One half of the each wound received Monocryl suture and the other half received Monosyn suture.
Absorable, monofilament sutures: Monosyn and Monocryl
Subjects were randomized to Monosyn vs. Monocryl suture arms. The designated skin lesion was removed surgically. The surgical repair of the defect was performed by dividing the wound in half by a single Prolene suture. The appropriate suture was opened by the Study Coordinator and passed sterilely to the surgical technician. The surgical technician loaded the suture, and passed it in a blinded fashion to the physician who closed the appropriate half of the surgical defect. One half of the wound was closed with one suture and the other half was closed with the other suture. Each patient served as their own control, as both sutures were used in each study patient.
2
Subjects with skin lesions requiring surgical excision and repair. One half of the each wound received Monocryl suture and the other half received Monosyn suture.
Absorable, monofilament sutures: Monosyn and Monocryl
Subjects were randomized to Monosyn vs. Monocryl suture arms. The designated skin lesion was removed surgically. The surgical repair of the defect was performed by dividing the wound in half by a single Prolene suture. The appropriate suture was opened by the Study Coordinator and passed sterilely to the surgical technician. The surgical technician loaded the suture, and passed it in a blinded fashion to the physician who closed the appropriate half of the surgical defect. One half of the wound was closed with one suture and the other half was closed with the other suture. Each patient served as their own control, as both sutures were used in each study patient.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Absorable, monofilament sutures: Monosyn and Monocryl
Subjects were randomized to Monosyn vs. Monocryl suture arms. The designated skin lesion was removed surgically. The surgical repair of the defect was performed by dividing the wound in half by a single Prolene suture. The appropriate suture was opened by the Study Coordinator and passed sterilely to the surgical technician. The surgical technician loaded the suture, and passed it in a blinded fashion to the physician who closed the appropriate half of the surgical defect. One half of the wound was closed with one suture and the other half was closed with the other suture. Each patient served as their own control, as both sutures were used in each study patient.
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* All surgical defects were required to be closed primarily (that is without flaps or grafts) and had equal skin integrity on both halves of their surgical defects.
* All subjects were capable of providing written informed consent.
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Tufts Medical Center
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Tufts Medical Center
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Gary S Rogers, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Tufts Medical Center
Linh K. Lu, MD, PhD
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Tufts Medical Center
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Tufts Medical Center
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
8229
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.