Skin closure at cesarean section, polypropylene versus polyglactin 910: a randomized controlled study

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorKoroglu, Nadiye
dc.contributor.authorYuksel, Ilkbal Temel
dc.contributor.authorCetin, Berna Aslan
dc.contributor.authorAytufan, Zubeyde
dc.contributor.authorDeniz, Necip
dc.contributor.authorAkca, Aysu
dc.contributor.authorYildirim, Gonca Yetkin
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-13T10:35:27Z
dc.date.available2024-03-13T10:35:27Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.departmentİstanbul Beykent Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractAim: To compare the rates of surgical wound infection in women who have undergone cesarean delivery with subcuticular skin closure with polyglactin 910 or polypropylene. Methods: Between April 2018 and October 2018, patients who had undergone a cesarean delivery for any reason were randomized with polyglactin 910 or polypropylene for subcuticular skin closure. Participants were evaluated for wound complications on day 7 and 30 postoperatively. The primary outcome was surgical site infection within the first 30 days following delivery. In addition, factors affecting surgical site infections were analyzed by binary regression. Results: A total of 220 women who had undergone cesarean delivery were randomized and 213 were included in the final analysis. The groups were similar in terms of demographic characteristics and perioperative features. No statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of wound complications or superficial site infections (8.3% in the polypropylene group versus 10.6% in the polyglactin 910 group, p = .642). Similarly, no difference was observed between the groups in terms of other wound complications. A binary logistic regression analysis indicated that superficial wound site infection was not affected by gravidity, BMI, duration of operation, repeated or unplanned cesarean delivery. Conclusion: It was observed that surgical site infections and other wound complications in skin closures with polyglactin 910 were similar to those with polypropylene.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/14767058.2020.1743654
dc.identifier.endpage1092en_US
dc.identifier.issn1476-7058
dc.identifier.issn1476-4954
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.pmid32228099en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85082600885en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1088en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2020.1743654
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12662/4432
dc.identifier.volume35en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000523707800001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal Of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicineen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectCesarean sectionen_US
dc.subjectpolyglactin 910en_US
dc.subjectpolypropyleneen_US
dc.subjectwound complicationsen_US
dc.subjectwound infectionen_US
dc.titleSkin closure at cesarean section, polypropylene versus polyglactin 910: a randomized controlled studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu