ABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Prostheses and Implants/adverse effects , Intraocular Pressure , Laser Therapy/methods , Gonioscopy/methods , Microscopy/methods , Fluorouracil/therapeutic use , Eye Injuries/diagnostic imaging , Eye Injuries/therapyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To study the safety and surgical time required when using the tissue adhesive 2-ethyl-cyanoacrylate compared with conventional suture in upper lid blepharoplasty. METHOD: A retrospective study was performed on 40 eyes of 20 patients who underwent bilateral upper lid blepharoplasty. In 7 patients, continuous non-absorbable suture (6-0 nylon monofilament Ethilon(®), Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJ) was used for closure of the incision and in 13 patients 2-ethyl-cyanoacrylate (Epiglue(®), Meyer -Haake, Germany) was used. The variables studied were intraoperative time required to close the incision, the cost of the material used and the incidence of infections and suture dehiscence. RESULTS: The average time taken to close the incision was 6.069 minutes with cyanoacrylate and 11.914 minutes with conventional suture (P<.05). The price of surgical material used was practically similar. No cases of infection or wound dehiscence were found. CONCLUSION: The closure of the incision in upper lid blepharoplasty using 2-ethyl-cyanoacrylate is a safe, effective, and faster, but not less expensive method than conventional suture.
Subject(s)
Blepharoplasty/methods , Cyanoacrylates/therapeutic use , Suture Techniques , Tissue Adhesives/therapeutic use , Wound Closure Techniques , Blepharoplasty/economics , Costs and Cost Analysis , Cyanoacrylates/economics , Humans , Postoperative Complications , Retrospective Studies , Spain , Suture Techniques/economics , Sutures/economics , Tissue Adhesives/economics , Wound Closure Techniques/economicsABSTRACT
Objetivo: Estudiar la seguridad y el tiempo quirúrgico requerido al usar el adhesivo tisularetil-2-cianocrilato comparado con la sutura convencional en la blefaroplastia superior.Métodos: Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo en 40 ojos de 20 pacientes intervenidos deblefaroplastia superior bilateral. En 7 pacientes para el cierre de la incisión se utilizaronpuntos continuos de sutura no reabsorbible (monofilamento nailon (6-0 Ethilon®, EthiconInc., Somerville, NJ) y en 13 pacientes se usó etil-2-cianocrilato (Epiglue®,Meyer-Haake, Alemania).Las variables estudiadas fueron el tiempo intraoperatorio requerido para el cierrede la incisión, el coste del material utilizado y la incidencia de infecciones y/o dehiscenciade sutura.Resultados: El promedio del tiempo empleado para el cierre de la incisión con el cianocrilatofue de 6.069 minutos y de 11.914 minutos con la sutura convencional (p < 0,05). El precio delmaterial quirúrgico utilizado fue prácticamente similar.No hubo ningún caso de infeccioneso dehiscencia de herida.Conclusiones: El cierre de la incisión de la blefaroplastia superior con cianocrilato es un procedimientoefectivo, seguro, más rápido pero no menos costoso que la sutura convencional(AU)
Objective: To study the safety and surgical time required when using the tissue adhesive2-ethyl-cyanoacrylate compared with conventional suture in upper lid blepharoplasty.Method: A retrospective study was performed on 40 eyes of 20 patients who underwentbilateral upper lid blepharoplasty. In 7 patients, continuous non-absorbable suture (6-0 nylonmonofilament Ethilon®, Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJ) was used for closure of the incisionand in 13 patients 2-ethyl-cyanoacrylate (Epiglue®, Meyer -Haake, Germany) was used. Thevariables studied were intraoperative time required to close the incision, the cost of thematerial used and the incidence of infections and suture dehiscence. Results: The average time taken to close the incision was 6.069 minutes with cyanoacrylateand 11.914 minutes with conventional suture (P < .05). The price of surgical material usedwas practically similar. No cases of infection or wound dehiscence were found.Conclusion: The closure of the incision in upper lid blepharoplasty using 2-ethylcyanoacrylateis a safe, effective, and faster, but not less expensive method thanconventional suture(AU)