Clinical Trials Logo

Citation(s)

  •   Fick JL, Novo RE, Kirchhof N
    Comparison of gross and histologic tissue responses of skin incisions closed by use of absorbable subcuticular staples, cutaneous metal staples, and polyglactin 910 suture in pigs. Am J Vet Res. 2005 Nov;66(11):1975-84. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2005.66.1975.
  •   Frishman GN, Schwartz T, Hogan JW
    Closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions. Staples vs. subcuticular suture. J Reprod Med. 1997 Oct;42(10):627-30.
  •   Gaertner I, Burkhardt T, Beinder E
    Scar appearance of different skin and subcutaneous tissue closure techniques in caesarean section: a randomized study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008 May;138(1):29-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.07.003. Epub 2007 Sep 6.
  •   Nitsche J, Howell C, Howell T
    Skin closure with subcuticular absorbable staples after cesarean section is associated with decreased analgesic use. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Apr;285(4):979-83. doi: 10.1007/s00404-011-2121-5. Epub 2011 Oct 30.
  •   Pineros-Fernandez A, Salopek LS, Rodeheaver PF, Drake DB, Edlich RF, Rodeheaver GT
    A revolutionary advance in skin closure compared to current methods. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2006;16(1):19-27. doi: 10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.v16.i1.30.
  •   Rousseau JA, Girard K, Turcot-Lemay L, Thomas N
    A randomized study comparing skin closure in cesarean sections: staples vs subcuticular sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Mar;200(3):265.e1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.01.019.
  •   Schrufer-Poland TL, Ruiz MP, Kassar S, Tomassian C, Algren SD, Yeast JD
    Incidence of wound complications in cesarean deliveries following closure with absorbable subcuticular staples versus conventional skin closure techniques. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Nov;206:53-56. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.501. Epub 2016 Aug 3.

Subcuticular Absorbable Staples Versus Conventional Skin Closure in Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Control Trial

Details for clinical trial NCT05112640