FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4200464189> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4200464189 endingPage "41" @default.
• W4200464189 startingPage "41" @default.
• W4200464189 abstract "Background: Suture removal in infants and children operated for cleft lip is one of the cumbersome task for the surgeons because of missing compliance. For this reason, tissue adhesives have gained popularity among the surgeons as well as the patients over the past two decades for skin wound closure. Although there are several published reports of case series using tissue adhesive for skin closure during cleft lip repair, very few have established its advantage over conventional suture technique. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the esthetic outcome of skin closure in cleft lip repair with suture technique and tissue adhesive, with respect to the quality of scar. Methodology: A retrospective observational study was conducted by analyzing the photographic records of patients who underwent surgical repair of cleft lip between January 2015 and December 2017. The patients were divided into two groups, one for whom skin closure performed with 5-0 monofilament polyamide suture and the other with tissue adhesive. Esthetic outcome in terms of the quality of scar was assessed using a 5 point Likert's scale by 10 independent observers who remained blind of the surgeon performed the surgery, to reduce the assessor-related bias to minimum. The statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 27.0 and the difference between mean scores of both the groups was calculated. Results: A total of 70 patients were included in this study with 35 in each group. The mean follow-up period of adhesive and the suture group was 13.97 and 17.85 months, respectively. Overall mean of the total scores of the entire patient population was 3.92 (+/‒0.38). For the tissue adhesive group, the mean score was 3.88 (+/‒0.367) and for the suture group, the mean score was 3.96 (+/‒0.401). The difference between mean scores of individual parameters of both the groups as well as the difference between the overall mean scores of both the groups was not found to be statistically significant. Conclusion: The use of tissue adhesive for the closure of skin during cleft lip repair is as good as sutures, with respect to esthetic outcome of scar. Hence, any of these two techniques can be used for this purpose depending on the surgeon's preference." @default.
• W4200464189 created "2021-12-31" @default.
• W4200464189 creator A5052263259 @default.
• W4200464189 creator A5071957762 @default.
• W4200464189 creator A5079752365 @default.
• W4200464189 date "2022-01-01" @default.
• W4200464189 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W4200464189 title "Esthetic outcome of cleft lip repair with the use of tissue adhesive as opposed to suture for skin closure – A retrospective comparative study" @default.
• W4200464189 cites W1985019793 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W1986836635 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2009402562 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2047299664 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2051076681 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2064156186 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2072081309 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2075891701 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2076374628 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2086847194 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2089095649 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2132584423 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2136051796 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2171994704 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2549952915 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2768849384 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W2997360037 @default.
• W4200464189 cites W3126819703 @default.
• W4200464189 doi "https://doi.org/10.4103/jclpca.jclpca_31_21" @default.
• W4200464189 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4200464189 type Work @default.
• W4200464189 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4200464189 countsByYear W42004641892023 @default.
• W4200464189 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4200464189 hasAuthorship W4200464189A5052263259 @default.
• W4200464189 hasAuthorship W4200464189A5071957762 @default.
• W4200464189 hasAuthorship W4200464189A5079752365 @default.
• W4200464189 hasBestOaLocation W42004641891 @default.
• W4200464189 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4200464189 hasConcept C167135981 @default.
• W4200464189 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W4200464189 hasConcept C2777327002 @default.
• W4200464189 hasConcept C2777642821 @default.
• W4200464189 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4200464189 hasConceptScore W4200464189C141071460 @default.
• W4200464189 hasConceptScore W4200464189C167135981 @default.
• W4200464189 hasConceptScore W4200464189C199343813 @default.
• W4200464189 hasConceptScore W4200464189C2777327002 @default.
• W4200464189 hasConceptScore W4200464189C2777642821 @default.
• W4200464189 hasConceptScore W4200464189C71924100 @default.
• W4200464189 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W4200464189 hasLocation W42004641891 @default.
• W4200464189 hasLocation W42004641892 @default.
• W4200464189 hasOpenAccess W4200464189 @default.
• W4200464189 hasPrimaryLocation W42004641891 @default.
• W4200464189 hasRelatedWork W1991405065 @default.
• W4200464189 hasRelatedWork W2007157876 @default.
• W4200464189 hasRelatedWork W2011177479 @default.
• W4200464189 hasRelatedWork W2024745621 @default.
• W4200464189 hasRelatedWork W2362483041 @default.
• W4200464189 hasRelatedWork W2368340406 @default.
• W4200464189 hasRelatedWork W2414718498 @default.
• W4200464189 hasRelatedWork W2800012567 @default.
• W4200464189 hasRelatedWork W3029515353 @default.
• W4200464189 hasRelatedWork W4301489211 @default.
• W4200464189 hasVolume "9" @default.
• W4200464189 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4200464189 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4200464189 workType "article" @default.