Prospective Randomized Trial of Monocryl Versus Nylon Suture Closure in Carpal Tunnel Surgery
NCT ID: NCT03950401
Last Updated: 2021-12-21
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
NA
124 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2019-05-16
2021-09-27
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.
Nylon Versus Chromic Gut Sutures for Minor Hand Surgery
NCT03407820
Wound Closure Study in Carpal Tunnel and Trigger Finger Surgery
NCT03781141
An Absorbable Suture Versus a Non-absorbable Suture in Carpal Tunnel Release, a Randomized Controlled Trial
NCT05503719
abSorbable vErsus Non-absorbable SuturEs for Wound Closure in Carpal Tunnel Release
NCT05431101
Ultrasonographic Measurements of the Median Nerve Before and After Splinting for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
NCT02038205
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The aim of this study is to determine if there is a significant difference in provider-assessed and patient-assessed outcomes using subcuticular Monocryl vs traditional Nylon sutures for wound closure following open carpal tunnel decompression surgery.
Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in provider-assessed or patient-assessed outcomes, as measured by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), between subcuticular Monocryl and traditional nylon wound closure methods after open carpal tunnel surgery.
Alternative hypothesis: Using a running subcuticular Monocryl suture for wound closure following open carpal tunnel release will result in significantly improved POSAS scores in comparison to traditional nylon wound closure
Background:
Open carpal tunnel decompression surgery is a common procedure, but controversy still exists regarding what wound closure method optimizes wound healing, cosmetic and patient satisfaction outcomes.
Research concerning the superiority of absorbable or non-absorbable sutures in the setting of wound closure for carpal tunnel decompression surgery is largely inconclusive, due to high risk of bias in previous comparison trials. Although some studies suggest that absorbable sutures confer a higher risk of infection, other studies suggest that absorbable sutures confer superior pain reduction, and still others suggest use of non-absorbable sutures due to reduced cost, both with respect to materials and by avoiding an additional clinician visit for suture removal.
A rigorous randomized trial of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures as wound closure methods following minor elective hand surgery procedures is indicated, to compare wound healing, cosmesis, patient-reported outcome measures, as well as cost for each method.
Study Timelines:
Participants will be enrolled either at their pre-operative clinic visit or on the day of their surgery in the preoperative holding area (PHA). They will receive 2 follow-up appointments at 10-14 days and 6 weeks, after the surgery. Patients are considered enrolled in the study until after their 6-week appointment.
Power Analysis:
The power analysis will use alpha = 0.05 and beta (power) = 0.8. Using the Fleisher et al. paper, the mean Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS) was 12 ± 3 for the suture group (p \< 0.01), and the mean for the staple group was 13. If the investigators expect to see a similar difference between absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, based on a two-sample t-test they would have to enroll 141 patients in each arm to have an 80% chance of seeing a difference at least this large, if there truly is one.
It is anticipated that a small percentage of patients will drop out of the study prior to completing their study endpoints. If the study allows for an approximate 15% dropout rate, then the investigators will plan to enroll 325 patients to ensure appropriate power. Looking at the surgeon numbers, each of the primary surgeons perform between 50-90 carpal tunnel surgeries per year. Therefore, the investigators estimate a 2.5 year enrollment period, followed by a six-month data review period.
Study Endpoints:
The primary study endpoint for subjects is a completed POSAS surveys at 6 weeks after their surgery.
There are no safety endpoints, as the study consists of a single intervention and both closure methods are well described and well tolerated (non-experimental).
Procedures Involved:
Patients will be identified by the operating surgeon (Dr. Szabo, Dr. Bayne or Dr. Allen) and enrolled either at their pre-operative clinic visit or in the preoperative holding area on the day of their surgery by either the operating surgeon or research personnel. After signing consent, the consenting researcher will use a digital Randomizer application ("Randomizer", available on all smart phones) to assign the individual to either Subcuticular Monocryl wound closure or traditional nylon wound closure. After being randomized, the study arm will be noted at the top of their consents and the consent scanned into the patient's electronic medical record. The hard copy consents will be stored securely as outlined below.
Patients will undergo surgery with the assigned wound closure. At each follow-up appointment (at approximately 2 and 6 weeks), patients and their operating physician will be given the POSAS questionnaire. In addition, patients will be asked the following question: "How satisfied are you with the results of the carpal tunnel surgery and recovery?" Assessed using a 5-point scale: completely satisfied (1 point), very satisfied (2 point), rather satisfied (3 point), dissatisfied (4 point), and completely dissatisfied (5 point).
Outcomes of the POSAS and satisfaction question will be complied into a research database and the de-identified data will be analyzed for significant differences between Subcuticular Monocryl and traditional nylon methods of wound closure.
During the data analysis phase of the study, a cost comparison will be performed, examining the cost of materials for each arm (assuming one suture packet used per patient). The investigators will also consider the cost differential in follow up visits, if patients closed with absorbable Monocryl sutures could be limited to one 6-week follow up visit, versus the nylon closure patients which would need an additional early visit for suture removal. No protected health information will need to be examined for this analysis.
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.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Monocryl
Closure of the skin at the completion of surgery by interrupted subcuticular technique with absorbable Monocryl suture.
Monocryl
subcuticular Monocryl wound closure
Nylon
Closure of the skin at the completion of surgery by interrupted technique on top of the skin with non-absorbable Nylon suture. These will be removed at the first postoperative visit.
Nylon
wound closure using nylon suture on the skin
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Monocryl
subcuticular Monocryl wound closure
Nylon
wound closure using nylon suture on the skin
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Patients who do not speak English will be included in this study, and will be provided with appropriate translators at all communication points.
Exclusion Criteria
* Patients who have known skin sensitivity to tape or absorbable suture.
* Those who are unable to give informed consent, individuals who are not yet adults (18 years or older), pregnant women, and prisoners will be excluded from this study.
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of California, Davis
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Robert M Szabo, MD, MPH
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of California, Davis
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of California, Davis
Sacramento, California, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Wade RG, Wormald JC, Figus A. Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after carpal tunnel decompression surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 1;2(2):CD011757. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011757.pub2.
Menovsky T, Bartels RH, van Lindert EL, Grotenhuis JA. Skin closure in carpal tunnel surgery: a prospective comparative study between nylon, polyglactin 910 and stainless steel sutures. Hand Surg. 2004 Jul;9(1):35-8. doi: 10.1142/s0218810404002017.
Hansen TB, Kirkeby L, Fisker H, Larsen K. Randomised controlled study of two different techniques of skin suture in endoscopic release of carpal tunnel. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2009;43(6):335-8. doi: 10.1080/02844310902955763.
Fleisher J, Khalifeh A, Pettker C, Berghella V, Dabbish N, Mackeen AD. Patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome in a randomized study of cesarean skin closure. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Nov;32(22):3830-3835. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1474870. Epub 2018 May 24.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
1386423
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.