These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Which tissue adhesive for wounds?
    Author: Doraiswamy NV, Baig H, Hammett S, Hutton M.
    Journal: Injury; 2003 Aug; 34(8):564-7. PubMed ID: 12892716.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]