ClinicalTrials.gov
public full text
Public Domain
Skin Glues Compared to Running Sutures for Perineal Skin Repair After Vaginal Delivery. A Randomized Controlled Trial
The incidence of a perineal tears during labor is 70 to 90%, while in 96% of the cases it's a minor perineal tear (grade 1). In about 3% to 4% the perineal tear is major and involve the external (grade 3) and the internal anal sphincter (grade 4). Episiotomy, which is considered an iatrogenic grade 2 tear, is performed in about 12% of vaginal deliveries. Complications related to perineal tears include bleeding, the most common, that may lead to the development of vaginal or perineal hematoma. Additionally, local infection can develop and complicate the recovery from the injury. In rare cases, abscesses may occur and in rarer cases necrotizing fasciitis or recto-vaginal fistula may also evolve. The "gold standard" method for repairing perineal tears is to use absorbable (preferably fast-absorbing) sutures. Grade 1 tears that do not bleed and do not disrupt the anatomical structure of the perineum usually do not require repair. Grade 2 tears are usually sewn in a continuous absorbent suture and less in the form of single stitches. The use of adhesive glue to repair skin injuries began 20 years ago and the main adhesive used is dermabond® (Ethicon Inc. octyl-2-cyanoacrylate). The use of glue is faster and lead to less pain than the use of stitches or staples. It can be used for a variety of large or small, traumatic or iatrogenic wounds, with a cosmetic result, infection rate, and dehiscence rate similar to those achieved by stitches or staples. In light of this, the investigators intend to conduct a randomized trial that will examine the advantages and disadvantages of the use of glue compared to the traditional sutures for closure of the skin in perineal tears grade 1 and 2 and episiotomies after vaginal delivery. The investigators hypothesis is that the use of adhesive glue to close the skin in perineal tears grade 1 and 2 (including episiotomy), will be faster and associated with less pain compared to the traditional suturing method, without a significant diff
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Pushing and Manual Perineal Protection Techniques#862514
- Affixing Polypropylene Mesh Using Barbed Suture (Quill™ Srs) During Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Randomized Controlled Trial (Quill Lsc)#898775
- Comparison of Surgical Site Infection Rate Between Primary, Delayed Primary and Vacuum Assisted Closures.#1151491
- Pelvic-perineal Disorders in Women With Sphincter Tears#1093868
- PMCF-study Using Novosyn® Quick Suture Material for Perineal Repair After Episiotomy#1074661
Record · ID 1306892
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive