At a glance
ClinicalIndex Comparison Record- ✓Living kidney donor
- ✓Informed consent provided
- ✓Approved comprehensive work-up/evaluation at local hospital
- ✕Allergy to acrylate or similar chemicals
- ✕Unable to communicate in Norwegian language
Standardized by ClinicalIndex from the ClinicalTrials.gov record · verify against the source.
A Prospective, Randomised Study on Tissue Glue (Cyanoacrylate) Versus Conventional Suture for Skin Closure in Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy
In Brief
A Phase 4 clinical trial evaluating Skin wound closure by tissue glue and Skin wound closure by conventional suture + dressing for Skin Closure of Surgical Incisions by Tissue Glue vs Suture. Completed, enrolled 64 participants across 1 site.
Detailed Summary
By means of a prospective, randomised trial the investigators want to examine skin closure in living donors - subjected to laparoscopic, hand-assisted nephrectomy - by tissue glue (Cyanoacrylate (Liquiband)) versus conventional, intracutaneous suture and dressing (1 : 1; 30 + 30 donors). Study hypothesis: (i) Latest generation tissue glue (Cyanoacrylate (Liquiband)) is at least as good as conventional suture regarding wound healing/complications. (ii) Peroperatively, tissue glue is faster than conventional suture.
Study Details
Timeline
Interventions
The glue is used both as closure device and as wound dressing.
Suture: Intracutaneous skin closure, by running, absorbable suture (Caprosyn 4-0) Dressing: Conventional textile dressing (Mepor)