Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Injury. 2003 Aug;34(8):564-7.

Which tissue adhesive for wounds?

Author information

1
Department of Paediatric Accident and Emergency, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Yorkhill, G3 8SJ, Scotland, Glasgow, UK. nanjappachetty.doraiswamy@yorkhill.scot.nhs.uk

Erratum in

  • Injury. 2004 Jun;35(8):636-7.

Abstract

We studied the three available tissue adhesives comparing their ease of technique, wound healing, satisfaction, merits and complications when treating childhood lacerations. Children presenting with uncomplicated wounds <2.5cm and <6h since the injury were studied. There were 17 children in each group. Results were compared for the individual tissue adhesive and the technique-contact and non-contact. The application was considered pain free in 82% of the non-contact technique and 56% for the contact technique-pain in 18 and 44%, respectively (P=0.062). Parents were satisfied in 88 and 94% for the contact and non-contact techniques, respectively (P=0.505) and the authors in 76 and 94% (P=0.119). The glove stuck to the wound in nine instances and was damaged once while breaking the container. The scab persisted in all scalp applications for 9-25 days. The adhesive effect was similar in all three. Indermil was considered to be the best among the three. Non-contact, droplet instillation (rather than contact application as was suggested for Dermabond and Histoacryl) was felt more comfortable.

PMID:
12892716
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center