Study Results
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
56 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2019-04-23
2022-01-20
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.
Suture Closure Trial
NCT05261425
Suture Versus Staples for Wound Closure in Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery
NCT06586814
Sutures Versus Staples for Wound Closure in Orthopaedic Surgery
NCT01146236
Does Addition of a Vessel Loop in Wound Closure Improve Suture Removal?
NCT04339439
Use of 2-octylcyanoacrylate (Dermabond) Versus 5-0 Fast Absorbing Gut During Cutaneous Wound Closure
NCT02547077
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
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.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
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
Suture
Standard suture wound closure device.
Adhesive wound closure device
Clozex wound closure device
Clozex
Interlaced adhesive wound closure device.
Adhesive wound closure device with zip ties
Zipline wound closure device
Zipline
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.
Clozex
Interlaced adhesive wound closure device.
Zipline
Adhesive wound closure device using zip-tie like strips.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* 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
* 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.
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Virginia
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.
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
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.
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.
Provided Documents
Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.
Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
Document Type: Informed Consent Form
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.