Use of Cyanoacrylate N-Butyl Versus Subcuticular Suture in the Dermal Closure Following Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Jessica Aidee Mora-Galvan, Norberto Reyes-Paredes, Juan Manuel Grosso-Espinosa, Marco Antonio Ortiz-Ramirez, Myrna Souraye Godines-Enriquez, Cintia Maria Sepulveda-Rivera


Background: Currently the use of tissue adhesives for surgical wound closure has multiplied; however, its use in cesarean sections is still not well determined. The objective of this study was to compare the surgical wound healing following cesarean sections between N-butyl cyanoacrylate (Tisuacryl) and suture (Monocryl 2-0).

Methods: A randomized, non-blinded controlled clinical trial was conducted from October 2017 to March 2018 at the Instituto Nacional de Perinatologia. Forty women undergoing cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to skin closure group using a random number table: 20 with N-butyl cyanoacrylate (Tisuacryl) (cases group) and 20 with Monocryl (control group). Scars were evaluated at 24 h, 1 week, 1 month and 3 months. Primary objective was to evaluate the esthetics of the scar with the scar cosmesis assessment and rating (SCAR) scale. Secondary objectives were skin closing time, the satisfaction of the patient and the satisfaction of the surgeon.

Results: Demographic characteristics, including average age, body mass index and number of pregnancies, were similar in both groups. The skin closing time showed a significant decrease with a P value of 0.000 between Tisuacryl and Monocryl (54.95 10.353 s in the first group vs. 407.5 72.61 s). The esthetic evolution of surgery using the SCAR scale showed a better evolution in the first visits (weekly and monthly) in the Monocryl group (2.05 0.60 and 1.68 0.477) vs. Tisuacryl (2.77 0.685 and 2.55 0.74) with a P value of 0.001 in SCAR 1 (first visit) and 0.000 in SCAR 2 (second visit). However, no significant differences were observed in the last result at 3 months (SCAR 3). Similarly, no significant differences were observed regarding the satisfaction of the surgeon or the patient.

Conclusions: The results of skin healing with Tisuacryl vs. Monocryl were similar in terms of the esthetics and satisfaction of the patient or the surgeon. Therefore, the use of each one depends on surgeon/patient preferences and the availability of materials.

J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2019;8(3):85-90


Cesarean section; Cyanoacrylate; Monocryl; Skin healing

Full Text: HTML PDF

Browse  Journals  


Journal of Clinical Medicine Research

Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics

World Journal of Oncology

Gastroenterology Research

Journal of Hematology

Journal of Medical Cases

Journal of Current Surgery

Clinical Infection and Immunity

Cardiology Research

World Journal of Nephrology and Urology

Cellular and Molecular Medicine Research

Journal of Neurology Research

International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics






Journal of Clinical Gynecology & Obstetrics, quarterly, ISSN 1927-1271 (print), 1927-128X (online), published by Elmer Press Inc.                     
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
This is an open-access journal, the authors retain the copyright, the journal is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Creative Commons Attribution license (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International CC-BY-NC 4.0)

This journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals,
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

website:   editorial contact:
Address: 9225 Leslie Street, Suite 201, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3H6, Canada

© Elmer Press Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the published articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the editors and Elmer Press Inc. This website is provided for medical research and informational purposes only and does not constitute any medical advice or professional services. The information provided in this journal should not be used for diagnosis and treatment, those seeking medical advice should always consult with a licensed physician.