Home Uncategorized ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY 1 (2125)

Uncategorized

ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY 1 (2125)

DISCUSSION ARTICLE

Original Research ajog.org

OBSTETRICS

Skin closure at cesarean delivery, glue vs subcuticular
sutures: a randomized controlled trial

Yair Daykan, MD1; Maya Sharon-Weiner, MD1; Yael Pasternak, MD; Keren Tzadikevitch-Geffen, MD;
Ofer Markovitch, MD; Rivka Sukenik-Halevy, MD; Tal Biron-Shental, MD

BACKGROUND: The optimal choice of skin closure at cesarean RESULTS: Demographic characteristics, patients’ clinical background,

delivery has not yet been determined.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared wound complications and scar
healing following cesarean delivery between 2 methods of skin closure:

glue (Dermabond; Ethicon, Somerville, NJ) and monofilament (Monocryl;

Ethicon) epidermal sutures.

STUDYDESIGN:We conducted a randomized controlled trial in which
pregnant women undergoing a scheduled cesarean delivery were

randomly assigned to skin (epidermis) closure with glue or with a mono-

filament synthetic suture. The subcutaneous tissue was sutured for all

patients. Outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Scars were

evaluated >8 weeks. Primary outcome measures were Patient and
Observer Scar Assessment Scale scores. Secondary outcome measures

were surgeon satisfaction, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization

after the cesarean delivery, and complications of surgical site infection or

wound disruption (hematoma or seroma). A sample of 104 women was

needed to achieve a clinically significant effect with a power of 80%.

Cite this article as: Daykan Y, Sharon-Weiner M,
Pasternak Y, et al. Skin closure at cesarean delivery, glue

vs subcuticular sutures: a randomized controlled trial. Am

J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:406.e1-5.

0002-9378/$36.00
ª 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.009

406.e1 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecol

ogy APRIL 2017

prepregnancy body mass index, and subcutaneous thickness were similar

in both groups. Length of surgery between the groups (37 � 10 minutes
for glue vs 39 � 13 minutes for sutures, P ¼ .515) was similar. Scores
immediately after the wound closure were similar for both groups

regarding surgeons’ time estimate of closure (P ¼ .181) and closure
appearance (P ¼ .082). Surgeons’ satisfaction with the technique was
significantly higher in the suture group (P ¼ .003). No significant differ-
ences were found between the groups in blood loss, surgical site infection,

length of postpartum hospitalization, or wound disruption. Glue and suture

skin closure scores using Patient and Observer Scar Assessmen

t Scale

were similar 8 weeks after surgery, at P¼ .710 for patients and P¼ .568
for a physician observer.

CONCLUSION: Skin closure using glue or a monofilament synthetic
suture had similar results. Both methods were shown to be safe and

successful for skin closure after a scheduled cesarean delivery and,

therefore, can be used based on surgeon and patient preferences.

Introduction
Cesarean delivery (CD) rates have
increased during the last few decades
and it has become the most common
surgery during women’s reproductive
years.1 However, despite its prevalence,
data regarding many aspects of the
preferred surgical technique are sparse.

Skin closure is an integral step of CD.
It influences postoperative pain, wound
healing, cosmetic outcome, and surgeon
and patient satisfaction.2

There is currently no definite evidence
regarding the best method for skin
closure after CD.3-5 Staples have been
suggested as inferior to other tech-
niques.3 Given the conflicting data
available, obstetricians are forced to base
their decisions on personal preference.

Dermabond glue (Ethicon Inc, Somer-
ville, NJ) is a liquid monomer that forms
a strong tissue bond with a protective
barrier that adds strength and inhibits
bacteria. An in vitro study found that
glue inhibits both gram-positive (meth-
icillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
and S epidermidis) and gram-negative
(Escherichia coli) bacteria.4 In addition,
glue has the potential advantages of
rapid application and repair time. It has
been shown to achieve cosmetically
similar results compared to staples
within 12 months of the repair.5,6 Also,
glue was shown to be well-accepted by
patients.5

To date, there have been no ran-
domized controlled trials comparing
skin closure with glue to sutures using
the Patient and Observer Scar Assess-
ment Scale (POSAS). The POSAS is a
validated and reliable instrument that
is practical for assessing scars.7-9 It is
comprehensive and correlates well with
patient ratings.
Previous studies regarding skin closure

with glue were small, retrospective, and
included mixed populations and varying

surgical techniques. Therefore, clear,
conclusive recommendations are lacking.

This prospective study compared
the outcomes of skin incision wound
closure using glue or sutures after a
scheduled CD.

Materials and Methods
This randomized, controlled trial was
conducted in a single, tertiary care
medical center over a 6-month period.
The study was approved by the
local institutional review board and
was registered with the clinical trials
registry (Clinical-Trials.gov identifier
NCT02831946).

Patients were recruited consecutively
1-3 days prior to an elective (prelabor,
scheduled) CD during the routine pre-
operative assessment. All patients
scheduled for an elective CD for various
indications who agreed to participate in
the study were included and provided
signed informed consent.

Inclusion criteria were patients with a
routine indication for an elective CD
(eg, previous CD, breech presentation),
maternal age 18-45 years, previous CD

http://Clinical-Trials.gov

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.009&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.009

http://www.AJOG.org

ajog.org OBSTETRICS Original Research

performed using the Pfannenstiel
method, at 37-41 weeks of gestation
based on first-trimester ultrasound, and
a viable fetus.

Exclusion criteria were an emergency
CD, previous CD not using Pfannenstiel
method, clinical signs of infection at the
time of CD, uncontrolled diabetes mel-
litus (defined as Hemoglobin A1c> 6%,
unbalanced daily glucose measurements,
and fasting glucose >95 mg/dL), history
of keloids, known hypersensitivity to any
of the suture materials used in the pro-
tocol, or any disorders requiring chronic
corticosteroids or immune suppressants.

Participants were randomized for skin
closure with glue or sutures prior to
surgery using designated software
(Randomizer for clinical trial, iOS app
version 2.0; Medsharing, Paris, France).
Prophylactic cephalosporin was admin-
istered to all patients within 60 minutes
before skin incision, based on American
Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecol-
ogists recommendations.10

Scars fromprevious CDwere removed
at the beginning of the surgery. The same
incision site was used for the current CD.
The skin and dermis were opened using a
sharp technique with scissors and with
coagulation when indicated. In both
groups after closure of the rectus fascia,
the subcutaneous fat layer was closed
with 3-4 interrupted, coated Vicryl plus
antibacterial 2-0 sutures using a V 26
needle (coated polyglactin 910 suture
with triclosan; Ethicon, Somerville, NJ).
In the glue group, we used 2 layers of
Dermabond to close the outer skin layer.
Based on manufacturer’s recommenda-
tions, the first layer of glue was applied to
attach the skin edges. Sixty seconds later,
a second layer was added to improve the
strength of the adhesion and to create a
barrier intended to decrease wound
infections.

Dermabond is a liquid monomeric
(2-octyl cyanoacrylate) formulation that
undergoes an exothermic reaction upon
exposure to moisture, changing to
polymers that form a strong tissue bond.
The wound was not dressed with an
abdominal pad or adhesive tape ac-
cording to manufacturer’s instructions.
In the suture group, the skin was closed
with Monocryl (poliglecaprone) 3-0

placed under the skin using a blind su-
ture technique. Steri-Strips (3MCorp, St
Paul, MN) were used to cover the wound
according to manufacturer’s
instructions. They were placed vertically
along the entire incision.
Five surgeons participated in the

study. We evaluated their satisfaction
with each closure method (glue vs
sutures) based on 3 questions asked
immediately upon completion of sur-
gery: (1) How comfortable were you
with the technique? (not at all [1] to
totally comfortable [5]); (2) Was the
estimated total operating time longer
using glue/sutures compared to skin
closure with staples? (not at all [1] to yes,
a lot longer [5]); and (3) Were you
satisfied with the final closure appear-
ance? (not at all [1] to yes, very satisfied
[5]). The surgeons did not participate in
the recruitment process. They operated
using glue or sutures according to the
patient randomization schedule.
The appearance of the scars was

evaluated 8 weeks after the CD by both
the patient and a physician, who was
blind to the technique used for skin
closure. For scar evaluation, we used a
validated scale: POSAS.7-9

The Observer Scar Assessment Scale
rates 5 variables: vascularity, pigmenta-
tion, thickness, relief, and pliability. Each
variable is ranked from 1-10, with 1 rep-
resenting normal skin. Ratings are sum-
med to obtain a total score ranging from
5-50. The Patient Scar Assessment Scale
consists of 6 items: scar-related pain,
itchiness, color, stiffness, thickness, and
irregularity. Each item is ranked from 1-
10, with 1 representing normal skin. Total
score ranges from 6-60.11

The primary outcomes were the
POSAS score7,8 8 weeks after the CD.
Secondary outcomes were surgeons’
satisfaction scale, duration of surgery,
duration of hospitalization after the CD,
and complications such as surgical site
infection (SSI) or wound disruption
(hematoma or seroma).

Statistical analysis
We calculated the power analysis based
on the assumption that a 20% (5-point)
difference in POSAS score would influ-
ence our clinical decision regarding the

APRIL 2017 Ameri

preferred method for skin closure,
similar to previous studies that used this
scoring system.11 The sample size
calculation indicated 52 participants
were needed for each arm of the study,
using a ¼ 0.05 and 80% power.

Nominal data were described as
numbers and percentages. Continuous
data were assessed for normal distribu-
tion (Shapiro-Wilk test) and were
described as mean � SD or median
(minimum-maximum). Quantitative
data were analyzed using c2 test or Fisher
exact test and continuous variables were
compared between groups using t test
or Mann-Whitney nonparametric test,
as appropriate. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed using statistical software (SPSS, V23, IBM Corp, Armonk, NY).

Results
A total of 110 women agreed to partici-
pate in the study. Three patients deliv-
ered vaginally prior to randomization.
One was scheduled for a CD for breech
presentation that spontaneously turned
to vertex. The other 2 were scheduled for
an elective CD for breech presentation,
but had external cephalic rotation per-
formed after spinal anesthesia.

A total of 107 patients were random-
ized and allocated to 2 intervention
groups included in the data analysis.
Three patients (2.8%) had an initial
evaluation, but were lost to follow-up
and did not arrive at the 8-week scar
evaluation. The final analysis included
104 (97.2%) participants, 52 in the glue
closure group and 52 in the suture
group.

Demographic and obstetric charac-
teristics are shown in Table 1. All the
patients were Caucasian. There was no
difference between the 2 groups
regarding parity, maternal age, smoking,
previous CD, or indications for CD. The
prepregnancy body mass index (BMI)
was not statistically different between the
groups (P ¼ .457).

Surgeons’ scores, which are summa-
rized in Table 2, include their estimation
regarding closure time (P ¼ .181) and
final closure appearance (P ¼ .082).
These did not differ between groups. The
mean satisfaction score was higher for

can Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 406.e2

http://www.AJOG.org

TABLE 1
Demographic and clinical characteristics of study participants (n [ 104)

Variable Glue n ¼ 52 Suture n ¼ 52 P value
Maternal age, y, mean � SD 35 � 4.3 34.44 � 4.9 .581
Gravidity, median (minimumemaximum) 3 (1e8) 3 (1e8) .125

Parity, median (minimumemaximum) 2 (0e6) 1 (0e6) .086

BMI, kg/m2, mean � SD (range) 28 � 5.8 (18.7e40.8) 29.1 � 7.3 (17.9e56.2) .457
Smokers, n (%) 3 (5.2) 3 (5.2) 1

Patients with previous CD, n (%) 37 (71.1) 34 (65.3) .527

No. of previous CD, median (minimumemaximum) 2 (1e4) 1 (1e3) .160

Surgical indications, n (%)

Breech presentation 14 (26.9) 17 (32.6) .520

Previous CD 37 (71.1) 34 (65.3) .527

Placenta previa 1 (1.9) 1 (1.9) 1

BMI, body mass index; CD, cesarean delivery.

Daykan et al. Skin closure at cesarean delivery: RCT of glue

vs sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017.

TABLE 2
Surgeon’s satisfaction surveya

Survey question Glue group Suture group P value

Skin closure techniqueepersonal
preference

3.8 � 1 (1e5) 4.4 � 0.6 (2e5) .003

Operating time estimated as longer 3.5 � 1.1 (1e5) 3.8 � 0.9 (2e5) .181
Closure appearance at end of CD 4.1 � 1 (1e5) 4.4 � 0.7 (3e5) .082
Values are expressed as mean � SD (range).
CD, cesarean delivery.

a (1) How comfortable were you with technique? (not at all [1] to totally comfortable [5]); (2) Was estimated total operating time
longer using glue/sutures compared to skin closure with staples? (not at all [1] to yes, a lot longer [5]); and (3) Were you
satisfied with final closure appearance? (not at all [1] to yes, very satisfied [5]).

Daykan et al. Skin closure at cesarean delivery: RCT of glue vs sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017.

Original Research OBSTETRICS ajog.org

the suture group (P ¼ .003). The vari-
ability between surgeons was not
significant.

No significant differences were
detected between the suture and glue
groups in patients with hemoglobin
decrease �2 g% (P ¼ .646), need for
blood transfusion (P ¼ .314), opera-
tive time (P ¼ .515), postoperative
fever (P ¼ 1), and prolonged hospi-
talization time >5 days (P ¼ 1) in
either group (Table 3). In all, 103 pa-
tients received prophylactic treatment
with cephalosporin (1 patient in the
glue group had a penicillin allergy and
received clindamycin). The percentage
of women with subcutaneous thick-
ness >2 cm was similar in both groups
(P ¼ .431).

The overall SSI rate was 3.8% (4/104).
In the glue group, it was 5.7% (3/52) vs
1.9% (1/52) for the suture group (P ¼
.212). Overall wound disruption without
signs of infection rate was 1.9% (2/104),
and was not significantly different be-
tween groups (2 [3.8%] vs 0 [0%], P ¼
.153). Prepregnancy BMI, subcutaneous
fat thickness, and duration of surgery
were similar between groups. There were
no cases of deep organ infection.

No differences in subjective and
objective scar ratings were detected be-
tween the groups at 8 weeks after surgery

406.e3 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecol

(Table 4). Subcutaneous thickness >2
cm did not affect scar assessment either
(Patient Scar Assessment Scale, P¼ .500;
Observer Scar Assessment Scale, P ¼
.883). We calculated the data separately
for primary and repeat CD and the
results were similar.

Comment
The major findings of our study are that
closure of skin incision after CD with
glue is as good as with sutures based on
POSAS performed 8 weeks after surgery.
Furthermore, parameters of SSI, length
of postoperative hospitalization, and
wound disruption were similar between
the 2 study groups.

ogy APRIL 2017

We found that total operating time
was similar between the sutures and glue
groups. Previous studies showed longer
operating time when closing the skin
with sutures compared to staples.12,13

Interestingly, a recent Cochrane re-
view14 that included 14 randomized
clinical trials indicated significantly
faster closure with sutures compared to
tissue adhesives. In our cohort, closure
time between glue and sutures were
similar.

In our institution, surgeons are expe-
rienced with sutures, staples, and glue
closure methods. In this study, we eval-
uated their satisfaction using glue or
sutures, based on 3 questions asked

http://www.AJOG.org

TABLE 3
Surgical characteristics

Variable Glue n ¼ 52 Suture n ¼ 52 P value
Operative time, min, mean � SD 37.4 � 10.4 39 � 13.4 .515
Subcutaneous thickness >2 cm, n (%) 26 (50) 30 (58) .431

Patient with hemoglobin
decrease �2 g%, n (%)

3 (5.7) 2 (3.8) .646

Blood transfusion, mean � SD 1 (1.9%) 0 .314
Postpartum fever >38�C, n (%) 1 (1.9) 1 (1.9) 1

Prolonged hospitalization �5 d, n (%) 1 (1.9) 1 (1.9) 1
Surgical site infection, n (%) 3 (5.7) 1 (1.9) .212

Wound disruption n (%) 2 (3.8) 0 .153

Daykan et al. Skin closure at cesarean delivery: RCT of glue vs sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017.
ajog.org OBSTETRICS Original Research

immediately after surgery. The survey
results indicated that surgeons were
more satisfied with the suture technique.
Our results are in agreement with
those of Mackeen et al,15 who found that
obstetricians tended to have a strong
preference for staples or sutures.
Importantly, the glue has other
advantages that should be taken into
consideration, as it provides a water-
proof barrier with antimicrobial
properties.14,16

Wound complications remain an
important source of morbidity after CD
and can result in considerable costs to
the patient and to the health care system.
We did not find significant differences
between the groups in blood loss, SSI,
length of post-CD hospitalization, or
wound disruption. Two study patients
from the glue group (3.8%) experienced
wound disruption and none of the
patients from the suture group. These
differences did not reach statistical
significance, but require further

TABLE 4
Patient and Observer Scar Assessmen

Score Glue

PSAS 16.4 � 6.4 (4e36)
OSAS 12.4 � 5.6 (6e27)
Values are expressed as mean � SD (range).
OSAS, Observer Scar Assessment Scale; PSAS, Patient Scar Ass

Daykan et al. Skin closure at cesarean delivery: RCT of glue

investigation. These results are in agree-
ment with a retrospective study con-
ducted by Siddiqui et al5 that
investigated wound separation and SSI
rates with glue compared to staples and
subcuticular sutures. In contrast, ac-
cording to a review14 designed to
compare tissue adhesives with conven-
tional skin closure techniques, sutures
were better than tissue adhesives in rates
of wound disruption. This review
included only 1 small study on CD.14

Differences in the results might be
related to different anatomical surgical
sites and study designs. Our study was a
randomized controlled trial with more
participants. Therefore, our conclusions
related to CD are likely to be more
reliable.
In our study, glue and suture skin

closure received similar POSAS scores 8
weeks after surgery by both patients and
physicians. The POSASwas developed to
evaluate all scar types (eg, linear scars,
burn scars). It has been validated in

t Scale

Suture P value

16.9 � 6.2 (5e28) .710
11.7 � 5.2 (4e25) .568

essment Scale.

vs sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017.
APRIL 2017 Ameri

numerous studies, especially among
dermatologists and plastic surgeons.7-9 A
study conducted by Cromi et al11 was the
first attempt to use this scale to evaluate
abdominal wound healing in obstetrical
care. Using POSAS, they found equiva-
lent cosmetic appearance of CD scars
when comparing staples and sub-
cuticular sutures. A scar assessment
scale, which subjectively evaluates the
recovery of surgical wounds, is an
important evaluation tool. To our
knowledge, our study is the first to
compare glue and subcuticular sutures
in CD using POSAS.

The strengths of this study are that it
compared the results of wound closure
techniques using randomized controlled
methods. In addition, it was powered to
answer the research question. All CD
were performed at a single academic
institution with a uniform surgical
technique, which strengthens the com-
parisons between the study groups.

This study is not without limitations.
Despite being powered to answer the
primary outcome of the research ques-
tion, it included a relatively small sample
that was underpowered to answer the
secondary outcomes of the study.
Further investigation with larger sample
sizes is indicated. We should also take
into consideration that the POSAS is a
subjective scoring system. However,
biases of the patients and the observers
could have potentially influenced both
arms of the study. Therefore, despite its
limitation, POSAS has been previously
validated and is considered acceptable
for scar assessment.7-9 Genetic and per-
sonal tendencies of skin incision healing
and scar tissue formation were not
evaluated. It has been previously shown
that these factors can affect scar tissue
formation.17 Also, a larger study group
would enable comparison of the effect of
the number of previous surgeries as well
as variations in subcutaneous thickness.

It would be interesting to investigate
skin closure outcomes in patients with
higher prepregnancy BMI and in pa-
tients undergoing emergency CD in
future studies. Also, the study was pow-
ered for scar appearance but not to look
at differences in SSI or wound disrup-
tion, which are clinically important

can Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 406.e4

http://www.AJOG.org

Original Research OBSTETRICS ajog.org

outcomes that need to be investigated
further.

In summary, our study suggests that
skin closure with glue following CD has
similar results to subcuticular sutures.
Both methods can be used interchange-
ably based on surgeon and patient pref-
erences. Future randomized controlled
trials focusing on long-term cosmetic
results of these techniques are still
needed. n

References

1. Blanchette H. The rising cesarean delivery
rate in America: what are the consequences?
Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:687-90.
2. Singer AJ, Hollander JE, Quinn JV. Evaluation
and management of traumatic lacerations.
N Engl J Med 1997;16:1142-8.
3. Clay FSH, Walsh CA, Walsh SR. Staples
vssubcuticular sutures for skin closureat cesarean
delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled
trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:378-83.
4. Bhende S, Rothenburger S, Spangler DJ,
Dito M. In vitro assessment of microbial barrier
properties of Dermabond topical skin adhesive.
Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2002;3:251-7.
5. Siddiqui DS, Lacuna EM, Chen HY,
Chauhan SP. Skin closure of Pfannenstiel inci-
sion with Dermabond, staples, or suture during
cesarean delivery: experience of a single
attending. Am J Perinatol 2013;30:219-24.
6. Singer AJ, Quinn JV, Clark RE,
Hollander JE. Closure of lacerations and

406.e5 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecol

incisions with octylcyanoacrylate: a multicenter
randomized controlled trial. Surgery
2002;131:270-6.
7. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FRH, Botman YA,
et al. The Patient and Observer Scar Assess-
ment Scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar
evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113:
1960-7.
8. van de Kar AL, Corion LU, Smeulders MJ,
Draaijers LJ, van der Horst CM, van
Zuijlen PP. Reliable and feasible evaluation of
linear scars by the Patient and Observer Scar
Assessment Scale. Plast Reconstr Surg
2005;116:514-22.
9. Truong PT, Lee JC, Soer B, Gaul CA,
Olivotto IA. Reliability and validity testing of
the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment
Scale in evaluating linear scars after breast
cancer surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg
2007;119:487-94.
10. American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists. Use of prophylactic antibi-
otics in labor and delivery. ACOG Practice
bulletin no. 120. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:
1472-83.
11. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Gottardi A, CherubinoM,
Uccella S, Valdatta L. Cosmetic outcomes of
various skin closuremethods following cesarean
delivery: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gyne-
col 2010;203:36.e1-8.
12. Rousseau JA, Girard K, Turcot-Lemay L,
Thomas N. A randomized study comparing skin
closure in cesarean sections: staples vs sub-
cuticular sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2009;200:265.e1-4.
13. Tuuli MG, Rampersad RM, Carbone JF,
Stamilio D, Macones GA, Odibo AO. Staples

ogy APRIL 2017

compared with subcuticular suture for skin
closure after cesarean delivery: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol
2011;117:682-90.
14. Dumville JC, Coulthard P, Worthington HV,
et al. Tissue adhesives for closure of surgical
incisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2014;11:CD004287.
15. Mackeen AD, Berghella V, Larsen M-L.
Techniques and materials for skin closure in
cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2012;11:CD003577.
16. Bruns TB, Worthington JM. Using tissue
adhesive for wound repair: a practical guide to
Dermabond. Am Fam Physician 2000;61:
1383-8.
17. Herzberger EH, Alon H, Hershko-Klement A,
Ganor-Paz Y, Fejgin MD, Biron-Shental T.
Adhesions at repeat cesarean delivery: is there
a personal impact? Arch Gynecol Obstet
2015;292:813-8.

Author and article information
From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (all

authors) and Genetics Institute (Dr Sukenik-Halevy), Meir

Medical Center, Kfar Saba, and Sackler School of Medi-

cine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (all authors), Israel.
1These authors contributed equally to this article.

Received Nov. 14, 2016; revised Dec. 20, 2016;

accepted Jan. 13, 2017.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Presented as an oral abstract at the 37th Annual

Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal

Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, Jan. 23-28, 2017.

Corresponding author: Yair Daykan, MD. yair.dykan@

gmail.com

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref1

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref2

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref3

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref4

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref5

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref6

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref7

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref8

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref9

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref10

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref11

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref12

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref13

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref14

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref15

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref16

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0002-9378(17)30116-3/sref18

mailto:yair.dykan@gmail.com

http://www.AJOG.org

Skin closure at cesarean delivery, glue vs subcuticular sutures: a randomized controlled trial

Introduction
Materials and Methods
Statistical analysis
Results
Comment
References

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY 1 (2125) ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now