Fingertip nail bed injuries in children: Comparison of suture repair versus glue (2-octylcyanoacrylate) with 1-year follow-up

Chiche, Léo; Jeandel, C.; Lyps, C.; Joly-Monrigal, Pauline; Alkar, Fanny; M'sabah, Djamel Louahem; Cottalorda, J.; Delpont, Marion

doi:10.1016/j.hansur.2020.09.001

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…25 Its application has broadly been used in sternotomy closures, nail bed injuries, blepharoplasty closure, and reduction mammaplasty; the studies have shown similar scar quality in comparison to sutures. 26 -29 In primary and secondary CLR, Dermabond has been reported to have excellent cosmetic outcomes similar to suture use, as well as simplified incision care and decreased infection rates. 30 -32 Dermabond may be preferential to other techniques because the adhesive film is nontoxic and infants can begin feeding normally in the postoperative period (International Standards Organization ISO).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Botox or Dermabond Superior in the Appearance of the Lip Scar After Primary Cleft Lip Repair and Revision? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Martinez,

Webster,

Imahiyerobo

2024

FACE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cleft lip scar formation is an inevitable consequence of cleft lip repair (CLR) and is exacerbated by the dynamic movement of the middle face. Various methods to correct or prevent these deformities have been described including silicone sheeting, surgical revisions, laser therapy, and more recently, Botulinum toxin-A (Botox) and Dermabond. This study aims to analyze and compare the impact of Botox versus Dermabond on scar appearance after CLR. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was performed on Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL using the following keywords: “Dermabond,” “botulinum toxin,” and “cleft lip.” Outcomes of interest were the rates of scar hypertrophy, scar width, Vancouver scar scale (VSS), visual analog scale (VAS), Hollander wound evaluation scale (HWES), and complications. Results: Nine studies were included of which 4 articles analyzed Botox and 5 analyzed Dermabond. Forest plots for scar width at the first and second time point supported the use of Botox to achieve a smaller scar width with P < .0001 (95% CI: −1.09 [−1.56 to −0.63] and 95% CI: −0.94 [−1.37 to −0.50], respectively). A significant increase in VAS was observed with Botox (95% CI: 1.66 [1.27-2.05], P value < .0001) and VSS was insignificant. Of the articles that analyzed Dermabond, scar appearance was comparable to the traditional suture closure group. There were no feeding complications for either intervention. Pooled forest plots for VAS comparing Botox and Dermabond supported the use of Botox with improved VAS (95% CI: 1.66 [1.27-2.05], P < .0001) compared to Dermabond (95% CI: 0.07 [ −0.48 to 0.61], P = .80). Conclusions: The current literature supports the use of Botox for scar improvement following CLR or revision. However, there is limited data to support Dermabond’s utility in improving scars in CLR, which highlights the need for further studies.

show abstract