Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=56 Randomized Treatment

Orthopaedic Surgical Wound Closure Comparison Study

Incision, Surgical

Enrolled (actual)
56
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Jun 2025
Primary outcome: Primary: Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale — 2.8; 4.09; 3.45 score on a scale

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
Suture (Device); Clozex (Device); Zipline (Device)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
University of Virginia
Primary completion
Jan 2022

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale
2.85; 3.82; 3.0
PRIMARY
Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale
2.85; 3.82; 3.0
SECONDARY
Time to Close
266.31; 91.09; 123.27
SECONDARY
Length of Incision
9.78; 8.23; 8.1
SECONDARY
Patient Satisfaction
8.11; 8.727; 8.82
SECONDARY
Patient Satisfaction
8.11; 8.727; 8.82
SECONDARY
Surgeon Satisfaction
7.11; 8.18; 8.0

Summary

This study is trying to find out if there is one method of surgical incision closure is better than another. The three different wound closure methods in this study are currently used in standard of care. The three methods being compared are standard stitches and the wound closure devices, Clozex, and Zipline. All of these methods are approved by the FDA.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Age 18+
  • Patient scheduled to undergo elective orthopaedic surgical procedure with a minimum anticipated incision length of 3 cm.
  • Willingness and ability to comply with scheduled visits and study procedures.

Exclusion Criteria

  • Revision Surgery
  • Compromised wound healing (autoimmune disorder, chronic steroids, connective tissue disorder)
  • Pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, cognitively impaired, educational or economically disadvantage, non-English speaking subjects.
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05251064). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search