Orthopaedic Surgical Wound Closure Comparison Study

NCT ID: NCT05251064

Last Updated: 2025-06-15

Study Results

Results available

Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.

View full results

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

56 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2019-04-23

Study Completion Date

2022-01-20

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

This study is trying to find out if there is one method of surgical incision closure is better than another. The three different wound closure methods in this study are currently used in standard of care. The three methods being compared are standard stitches and the wound closure devices, Clozex, and Zipline. All of these methods are approved by the FDA.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

There are many surgical wound closure methods commonly used in practice today. These usually involve a combination of braided and monofilament sutures in the subcutaneous fascia and fat as well as the subcuticular layers of the skin. The methods chosen by surgeons vary widely even amongst partners at the same institution for many reasons, including training background and conflicting reports in the literature. In some cases, these closure techniques can be time consuming and associated with increased rates of poor cosmetic outcomes or complications. There have been new wound closure products to reach the market that have been designed (Zipline - Campbell, CA and Clozex - Wellesley, MA), claiming to increase the speed of closure and decrease the rate of complications. These products both utilize an adhesive backed film to adhere to the skin along with a proprietary method to enhance skin apposition to reduce tension during the healing process. There has been no randomized controlled trial to determine superiority of the above listed surgical closure methods compared to traditional methods.

Our study aims to compare a "traditional" wound closure using both braided and monofilament sutures to the newer wound closure systems. By determining which method provides superior results, we will improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. The study also aims to assess health care value by exploring the costs associated with each closure technique. In addition to material expenses associated with the traditional sutures, we seek to explore if there is a significant difference in the time required to perform each wound closure method. Every minute of anesthesia and operating room utilization is associated with costs borne by the patient and the health care system. By finding which closure method is the fastest and associated with the best outcome we can improve healthcare value.

These methods will be tested in a randomized controlled trial and will be analyzed with multivariate statistical analysis to examine statistical significance. Subjects will be randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion to sutures, Closex, or Zipline. Surgeons will complete a satisfaction questionnaire about the randomized method used for closure. Surgical subjects will complete a satisfaction questionnaire at two follow up visits that align with standard of care visits and will have the incision measured and examined. Our primary objective outcome measure will be an assessment of surgical scar dimensions. Our hypothesis is that the 3 study groups will have similar objective scar measurements but that the savings in time associated with the new wound closure methods will be significant.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Incision, Surgical

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Suture

Standard suture wound closure

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Suture

Intervention Type DEVICE

Standard suture wound closure device.

Adhesive wound closure device

Clozex wound closure device

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Clozex

Intervention Type DEVICE

Interlaced adhesive wound closure device.

Adhesive wound closure device with zip ties

Zipline wound closure device

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Zipline

Intervention Type DEVICE

Adhesive wound closure device using zip-tie like strips.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Suture

Standard suture wound closure device.

Intervention Type DEVICE

Clozex

Interlaced adhesive wound closure device.

Intervention Type DEVICE

Zipline

Adhesive wound closure device using zip-tie like strips.

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Age 18+
* Patient scheduled to undergo elective orthopaedic surgical procedure with a minimum anticipated incision length of 3 cm.
* Willingness and ability to comply with scheduled visits and study procedures.

Exclusion Criteria

* Revision Surgery
* Compromised wound healing (autoimmune disorder, chronic steroids, connective tissue disorder)
* Pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, cognitively impaired, educational or economically disadvantage, non-English speaking subjects.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

University of Virginia

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Mark Miller, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of Virginia

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, Virginia, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Burke JF, MacLean IS, Smith JM, Hart JM, Miller MD. A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Comparison of Adhesive Wound Closure Devices in an Orthopaedic Patient. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2022 Sep 23;6(9):e22.00179. doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00179. eCollection 2022 Sep 1.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 36155955 (View on PubMed)

Provided Documents

Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.

Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan

View Document

Document Type: Informed Consent Form

View Document

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

21411

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

DuraMesh Laparotomy Study
NCT03966768 WITHDRAWN NA