Irritant and allergic contact dermatitis from wound closure materials can occur in patients after surgical procedures. The resulting inflammation from contact dermatitis can compromise wound healing, mimic surgical site infections, and result in wound dehiscence. Components of wound closure material, such as antibiotic coatings, dyes, sterilizing compounds, or the material itself, have been implicated as contact allergens. This article provides the latest overview of the components of 3 major forms of wound closure materials—sutures, staples, and tissue adhesives—associated with contact dermatitis, discusses their cross-reactivity, and provides diagnostic and treatment guidelines.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BowenC, BidingerJ, HivnorC, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate. Cutis, 2014; 94(4):183–186.
2.
CookKA, KelsoJM. Surgery-related contact dermatitis: a review of potential irritants and allergens. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract, 2017; 5(5):1234–1240. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2017.03.001.
MatlagaBF, SalthouseTN. Ultrastructural observations of cells at the interface of a biodegradable polymer: polyglactin 910. J Biomed Mater Res, 1983; 17(1):185–197. doi:10.1002/jbm.820170115.
5.
BeardsleySL, SmeakDD, WeisbrodeSE. Histologic evaluation of tissue reactivity and absorption in response to a new synthetic fluorescent pigmented polypropylene suture material in rats. Am J Vet Res, 1995; 56(9):1248–1252.
6.
HolzheimerRG. Adverse events of sutures: possible interactions of biomaterials?Eur J Med Res, 2005; 10(12):521–526.
7.
BeklerHI, BeyzadeogluT, GokceA, et al.Aseptic drainage associated with polyglactine sutures used for repair of Achilles tendon ruptures [in Turkish]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc, 2008; 42(2):135–138. doi:10.3944/aott.2008.42.2.135.
8.
RaapU, WieczorekD, KappA, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis to acid blue 158 in suture material. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 59(3):192–193. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2008.01411.x.
9.
Titley-DiazW, De CiccoF. Suture hypersensitivity. In: StatPearls [Internet]; 2020.
10.
CarrollRE. Surgical catgut: the myth of allergy. J Hand Surg (Br), 1989; 14(2):218–220. doi:10.1016/0266-7681(89)90131-9.
11.
RostGS. Allergic reactions to catgut preservatives: phenol mercuric acetate sensitivity; a case report. J Iowa State Med Soc, 1953; 43(6):218–219.
12.
PostlethwaitRW, WilliganDA, UlinAW. Human tissue reaction to sutures. Ann Surg, 1975; 181(2):144–150. doi:10.1097/00000658-197502000-00003.
13.
EnglerRJ, WeberCB, TurnickyR. Hypersensitivity to chromated catgut sutures: a case report and review of the literature. Ann Allergy, 1986; 56(4):317–320.
14.
OgbechieOA, PaulS, SchalockPC. A technique for identifying vicryl suture hypersensitivity. Dermatitis, 2014; 25(6):370–371. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000085.
15.
StoccoC, BertonF, PapaG, et al.Vicryl hypersensitivity test with histological response. Dermatitis, 2016; 27(3):145–146. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000182.
16.
BhutaniT, JacobSE. Triclosan: a potential allergen in suture-line allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatol Surg, 2009; 35(5):888–889. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4725.2009.01151.x.
ObermeierA, SchneiderJ, HarrasserN, et al.Viable adhered Staphylococcus aureus highly reduced on novel antimicrobial sutures using chlorhexidine and octenidine to avoid surgical site infection (SSI). PLoS One, 2018; 13(1):e0190912. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190912.
19.
SchlarbaumJP, HylwaSA. Allergic contact dermatitis to operating room scrubs and disinfectants. Dermatitis, 2019; 30(6):363–370. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000525.
20.
TaeBS, ParkJH, KimJK, et al.Comparison of intraoperative handling and wound healing between (NEOSORB® plus) and coated polyglactin 910 suture (NEOSORB®): a prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. BMC Surg, 2018; 18(1):45. doi:10.1186/s12893-018-0377-4.
21.
ObermeierA, SchneiderJ, WehnerS, et al.Novel high efficient coatings for anti-microbial surgical sutures using chlorhexidine in fatty acid slow-release carrier systems. PLoS One, 2014; 9(7):e101426. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101426.
22.
PeaseR. The incidence of hypertrophic scar formation in wounds closed with subcuticular nylon or polyglycolic acid (Dexon). Br J Plast Surg, 1976; 29(4):284–285. doi:10.1016/0007-1226(76)90003-5.
23.
ChantarasakND, MilnerRH. A comparison of scar quality in wounds closed under tension with PGA (Dexon) and polydioxanone (PDS). Br J Plast Surg, 1989; 42(6):687–691. doi:10.1016/0007-1226(89)90082-9.
24.
MawardiH. Oral contact allergy to suture material resulting in connective tissue graft failure: a case report. Clinical Advances in Periodontics, 2014; 4(3):155–160. doi:10.1902/cap.2013.120108.
25.
CraigPH, WilliamsJA, DavisKW, et al.A biologic comparison of polyglactin 910 and polyglycolic acid synthetic absorbable sutures. Surg Gynecol Obstet, 1975; 141(1):1–10.
Della TorreF, Della TorreE, Di BerardinoF. Side effects from polydioxanone. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol, 2005; 37(2):47–48.
28.
KudubanO, KudubanSD. Early skin reaction of polydioxanone suture material following septorhinoplasty. Am J Case Rep, 2015; 16:276–278. doi:10.12659/AJCR.893895.
29.
FujiiS. Evaluation of hypersensitivity to anthraquinone-related substances. Toxicology, 2003; 193(3):261–267. doi:10.1016/s0300-483x(03)00270-1.
30.
KornreichDA, ChaC, KaleyK, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis associated with Biosyn suture in a patient with gastroesophageal junction cancer. Cutan Ocul Toxicol, 2013; 32(2):166–167. doi:10.3109/15569527.2012.676120.
31.
DagregorioG, GuilletG. Allergic suture material contact dermatitis induced by ethylene oxide. Allergy, 2004; 59(11):1239. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2004.00598.x.
32.
HausenBM. Allergic contact dermatitis from colored surgical suture material: contact allergy to epsilon-caprolactam and acid blue 158. Am J Contact Dermat, 2003; 14(3):174–175. doi:10.2310/6620.2003.6129.
ChungHS, FederRS, WestonBC, et al.Suture reaction masquerading as a conjunctival malignancy. Can J Ophthalmol, 2006; 41(2):207–209. doi:10.1139/I06-011.
37.
CajigasI, BurksSS, GernsbackJ, et al.Allergy to prolene sutures in a dural graft for Chiari decompression. Case Rep Med, 2015; 2015:583570–583573. doi:10.1155/2015/583570.
38.
Sánchez-MorillasL, Reaño MartosM, Rodríguez MosqueraM, et al.Delayed sensitivity to prolene. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48(6):338–339. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2003.00131.x.
39.
Al-QattanMM, KfouryH. A delayed allergic reaction to polypropylene suture used in flexor tendon repair: case report. J Hand Surg [Am], 2015; 40(7):1377–1381. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.03.004.
40.
AschermanJA, HunterCJ, BickersDR. Refractory eczematous dermatitis associated with retained suture material. Ann Plast Surg, 2006; 56(2):205–207. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000192125.59373.9e.
41.
TeymoortashA, FasunlaJA, PfutznerW, et al.Nasal tip abscess due to adverse skin reaction to prolene: an unusual long term complication of rhinoplasty. J Laryngol Otol, 2013; 127(1):76–79. doi:10.1017/S0022215112002575.
42.
RossitchEJr.On delayed reactions to buried silk sutures. N C Med J, 1987; 48(12):669–670.
43.
KatsunumaT, IikuraY. Delayed allergic reaction to silk sutures: a case report. Arerugi, 1995; 44(6):630–632. doi:10.15036/arerugi.44.630.
44.
TubbsRS, VermaK, RiechS, et al.Reaction to silk suture in children undergoing neurosurgery: case reports and review of the literature. Childs Nerv Syst, 2011; 27(3):497–499. doi:10.1007/s00381-010-1327-3.
45.
ParellGJ, BeckerGD. Comparison of absorbable with nonabsorbable sutures in closure of facial skin wounds. Arch Facial Plast Surg, 2003; 5(6):488–490. doi:10.1001/archfaci.5.6.488.
KimJ, Singh MaanH, CoolAJ, et al.Fast absorbing gut suture versus cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive in the epidermal closure of linear repairs following mohs micrographic surgery. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol, 2015; 8(2):24–29.
BregnbakD, JohansenJD, JellesenMS, et al.Chromium allergy and dermatitis: prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73(5):261–280. doi:10.1111/cod.12436.
51.
SchemanA, RakowskiEM, SheehanJ, et al.Contact allergy to poliglecaprone 25 sutures. Cutis, 2016; 98(5):E1–E2.
52.
DucheyneP, HealyK, HutmacherDW, et al.Biomaterials and clinical use. In: Comprehensive Biomaterials. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science; 2015.
53.
HerrmannJB, KellyRJ, HigginsGA. Polyglycolic acid sutures. Laboratory and clinical evaluation of a new absorbable suture material. Arch Surg, 1970; 100(4):486–490. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1970.01340220162027.
54.
MacKinnonAE, BrownS. Skin closure with polyglycolic acid (Dexon). Postgrad Med J, 1978; 54(632):384–385. doi:10.1136/pgmj.54.632.384.
55.
CoxAG, SimpsonJE. Letter: polyglycolic-acid suture material in skin closure. Lancet, 1975; 1(7904):452. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(75)91520-2.
56.
JonesSM, ShoreyBA. Letter: polyglycolic-acid suture material in skin closure. Lancet, 1975; 1(7903):390. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(75)91299-4.
57.
ObermeierA, SchneiderJ, FohrP, et al.In vitro evaluation of novel antimicrobial coatings for surgical sutures using octenidine. BMC Microbiol, 2015; 15(1):186. doi:10.1186/s12866-015-0523-4.
58.
NewmanJM, GeorgeJ, ShepherdJT, et al.Effects of topical antiseptic solutions used during total knee arthroplasty on suture tensile strength. Surg Technol Int, 2017; 30:399–404.
59.
AhmedI, BoultonAJ, RizviS, et al.The use of triclosan-coated sutures to prevent surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. BMJ Open, 2019; 9(9):e029727. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029727.
60.
AlsarhanM, AlnofaieH, AteeqR, et al.The effect of chlorhexidine and Listerine® mouthwashes on the tensile strength of selected absorbable sutures: an in vitro study. Biomed Res Int, 2018; 2018:8531706. doi:10.1155/2018/8531706.
61.
OgilvieMP, FewJWJr., TomurSS, et al.Rejuvenating the face: an analysis of 100 absorbable suture suspension patients. Aesthet Surg J, 2018; 38(6):654–663. doi:10.1093/asj/sjx202.
62.
SuhDH, JangHW, LeeSJ, et al.Outcomes of polydioxanone knotless thread lifting for facial rejuvenation. Dermatol Surg, 2015; 41(6):720–725. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000000368.
63.
MastrokalosDS, PaesslerHH. Allergic reaction to biodegradable interference poly-l-lactic acid screws after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone graft. Art Ther, 2008; 24(6):732–733. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2006.12.029.
64.
ChanFL, HouseR, KudlaI, et al.Health survey of employees regularly using 3D printers. Occup Med (Lond), 2018; 68(3):211–214. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqy042.
65.
ChenX, ChenG, WangG, et al.Recent progress on 3D-printed polylactic acid and its applications in bone repair. Adv Eng Mater, 2019; 22(4):1901065. doi:10.1002/adem.201901065.
66.
McCleanME, BoenM, AlhaddadM, et al.Suture lifting: a review of the literature and our experiences. Dermatol Surg, 2020; 46(8):1068–1077. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000002297.
67.
Yag-HowardC. Sutures, needles, and tissue adhesives: a review for dermatologic surgery. Dermatol Surg, 2014; 40(suppl 9):S3–s15. doi:10.1097/01.DSS.0000452738.23278.2d.
68.
HollanderDH. Interstitial cystitis and silk allergy. Med Hypotheses, 1994; 43(3):155–156. doi:10.1016/0306-9877(94)90142-2.
69.
KurosakiS, OtsukaH, KunitomoM, et al.Fibroin allergy. IgE mediated hypersensitivity to silk suture materials. Nihon Ika Daigaku Zasshi, 1999; 66(1):41–44. doi:10.1272/jnms.66.41.
70.
ButlerL, MowadC. Allergic contact dermatitis in dermatologic surgery: review of common allergens. Dermatitis, 2013; 24(5):215–221. doi:10.1097/der.0b013e3182a0d3a9.
71.
YuJ, BaiH, BrodB. The North American Baseline Series. Contact Dermatitis, 2021; 709–715.
72.
SchalockPC, DunnickCA, NedorostS, et al.American Contact Dermatitis Society core allergen series: 2017 update. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(2):141–143. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000261.
73.
BreuerK, WormM, SkudlikC, et al.Ethylene oxide as an occupational contact allergen—an underestimated problem?Allergol Select, 2017; 1(1):9–13. doi:10.5414/ALX01311E.
BirnieAJ, EnglishJS. Ethylene oxide allergy may have been confirmed by patch testing to a similar epoxy compound. Contact Dermatitis, 2006; 55(2):126. doi:10.1111/j.0105-1873.2006.00834a.x.
76.
CoxI. Guidelines for re-sterilising sutures. Community Eye Health, 2004; 17(50):30–30.
BernardL, DoyleJ, FriedlanderSF, et al.A prospective comparison of octyl cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (Dermabond) and suture for the closure of excisional wounds in children and adolescents. Arch Dermatol, 2001; 137(9):1177–1180. doi:10.1001/archderm.137.9.1177.
79.
ToriumiDM, O'GradyK, DesaiD, et al.Use of octyl-2-cyanoacrylate for skin closure in facial plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1998; 102(6):2209–2219. doi:10.1097/00006534-199811000-00062.
80.
DumvilleJC, CoulthardP, WorthingtonHV, et al.Tissue adhesives for closure of surgical incisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014 (11):CD004287. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004287.pub4.
81.
BartensteinDW, CumminsDL, RogersGS. A prospective, randomized, single-blind study comparing cyanoacrylate adhesives to sutures for wound closure in skin cancer patients. Dermatol Surg, 2017; 43(11):1371–1378. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000001200.
82.
BrunsTB, WorthingtonJM. Using tissue adhesive for wound repair: a practical guide to dermabond. Am Fam Physician, 2000; 61(5):1383–1388.
83.
ToriumiDM, RaslanWF, FriedmanM, et al.Histotoxicity of cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives. A comparative study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 1990; 116(5):546–550. doi:10.1001/archotol.1990.01870050046004.
84.
ToriumiDM, RaslanWF, FriedmanM, et al.Variable histotoxicity of histoacryl when used in a subcutaneous site: an experimental study. Laryngoscope, 1991; 101(4 Pt 1):339–343. doi:10.1002/lary.1991.101.4.339.
85.
QuinnJ, MawJ, RamotarK, et al.Octylcyanoacrylate tissue adhesive versus suture wound repair in a contaminated wound model. Surgery, 1997; 122(1):69–72. doi:10.1016/s0039-6060(97)90266-x.
EaglsteinWH, SullivanTP, GiordanoPA, et al.A liquid adhesive bandage for the treatment of minor cuts and abrasions. Dermatol Surg, 2002; 28(3):263–267. doi:10.1046/j.1524-4725.2002.01207.x.
88.
CravenNM, TelferNR. An open study of tissue adhesive in full-thickness skin grafting. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1999; 40(4):607–611. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(99)70445-7.
89.
FischerK, KramerS, HelbigS, et al.An uncommon complication: Allergic contact dermatitis after retroauricular application of LiquiBand® (n-Butyl-2-Cyanoacrylate) topical skin adhesive. Laryngo-Rhino-Otol. 98. 10.1055/s-0039-1686574.
JonesAD, BoyleEM, WoltjerR, et al.Persistent type IV hypersensitivity after cyanoacrylate closure of the great saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech, 2019; 5(3):372–374. doi:10.1016/j.jvscit.2019.05.004.
92.
SumarliSA, LeeQWS, YapHY, et al.Exit site complications following cyanoacrylate glue endovenous ablation of incompetent truncal veins for chronic venous insufficiency. J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech, 2020; 6(4):500–504. doi:10.1016/j.jvscit.2020.08.010.
QuinnJV, DrzewieckiA, LiMM, et al.A randomized, controlled trial comparing a tissue adhesive with suturing in the repair of pediatric facial lacerations. Ann Emerg Med, 1993; 22(7):1130–1135. doi:10.1016/s0196-0644(05)80977-1.
95.
EllisDA, ShaikhA. The ideal tissue adhesive in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery. J Otolaryngol, 1990; 19(1):68–72.
96.
MizrahiS, BickelA, Ben-LayishE. Use of tissue adhesives in the repair of lacerations in children. J Pediatr Surg, 1988; 23(4):312–313. doi:10.1016/s0022-3468(88)80195-7.
97.
VoteBJ, ElderMJ. Cyanoacrylate glue for corneal perforations: a description of a surgical technique and a review of the literature. Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2000; 28(6):437–442. doi:10.1046/j.1442-9071.2000.00351.x.
LiuT, WanJ, McKennaRA, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis caused by Dermabond in a paediatric patient undergoing skin surgery. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 80(1):61–62. doi:10.1111/cod.13125.
100.
DavisMD, StuartMJ. Severe allergic contact dermatitis to Dermabond Prineo, a topical skin adhesive of 2-octyl cyanoacrylate increasingly used in surgeries to close wounds. Dermatitis, 2016; 27(2):75–76. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000163.
101.
BittermanA, SandhuK. Allergic contact dermatitis to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate after surgical repair: humidity as a potential factor. JAAD Case Rep, 2017; 3(6):480–481. doi:10.1016/j.jdcr.2017.07.006.
AsaiC, InomataN, SatoM, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis due to the liquid skin adhesive Dermabond(R) predominantly occurs after the first exposure. Contact Dermatitis, 2021; 84(2):103–108. doi:10.1111/cod.13700.
104.
StuderM, Pouget-JassonC, WatonJ, et al.Comment tester l'allergie de contact à la colle tissulaire au 2-octylcyanoacrylate (Dermabond®)?Revue Française d'Allergologie, 2010; 50(2):75–76. doi:10.1016/j.reval.2009.09.005.
105.
HivnorCM, HudkinsML. Allergic contact dermatitis after postsurgical repair with 2-octylcyanoacrylate. Arch Dermatol, 2008; 144(6):814–815. doi:10.1001/archderm.144.6.814.
106.
Gonzalo-GarijoMA, Perez-CalderonR, Perez-RangelI, et al.Contact dermatitis after orthopaedic surgery. Contact Dermatitis, 2009; 61(5):299–300. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2009.01632.x.
107.
El-DarsLD, ChaudhuryW, HughesTM, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis to Dermabond after orthopaedic joint replacement. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 62(5):315–317. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2010.01720.x.
108.
GoogeB, MayB, CushingC. Os styloideum resection complicated by severe contact dermatitis to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate: a case study. Wound Manag Prev, 2020; 66(7):33–38.
109.
LakeNH, BarlowBT, ToledanoJE, et al.Contact dermatitis reaction to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate following 3 orthopedic procedures. Orthopedics, 2018; 41(2):e289–e291. doi:10.3928/01477447-20170918-08.
GuinJD, BaasK, Nelson-AdesokanP. Contact sensitization to cyanoacrylate adhesive as a cause of severe onychodystrophy. Int J Dermatol, 1998; 37(1):31–36. doi:10.1046/j.1365-4362.1998.00252.x.
114.
ShelleyED, ShelleyWB. Chronic dermatitis simulating small-plaque parapsoriasis due to cyanoacrylate adhesive used on fingernails. JAMA, 1984; 252(17):2455–2456.
115.
FitzgeraldDA, BhaggoeR, EnglishJS. Contact sensitivity to cyanoacrylate nail-adhesive with dermatitis at remote sites. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 32(3):175–176. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1995.tb00814.x.
116.
TombRR, LepoittevinJP, DurepaireF, et al.Ectopic contact dermatitis from ethyl cyanoacrylate instant adhesives. Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 28(4):206–208. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1993.tb03402.x.
AschenbeckKA, HylwaSA. A diabetic's allergy: ethyl cyanoacrylate in glucose sensor adhesive. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(4):289–291. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000281.
119.
LeggatPA, KedjaruneU, SmithDR. Toxicity of cyanoacrylate adhesives and their occupational impacts for dental staff. Ind Health, 2004; 42(2):207–211. doi:10.2486/indhealth.42.207.
120.
MehdizadehM, YangJ. Design strategies and applications of tissue bioadhesives. Macromol Biosci, 2013; 13(3):271–288. doi:10.1002/mabi.201200332.
121.
SingerAJ, QuinnJV, HollanderJE. The cyanoacrylate topical skin adhesives. Am J Emerg Med, 2008; 26(4):490–496. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2007.05.015.
122.
Al-MubarakL, Al-HaddabM. Cutaneous wound closure materials: an overview and update. J Cutan Aesthet Surg, 2013; 6(4):178–188. doi:10.4103/0974-2077.123395.
123.
BlondeelPN, MurphyJW, DebrosseD, et al.Closure of long surgical incisions with a new formulation of 2-octylcyanoacrylate tissue adhesive versus commercially available methods. Am J Surg, 2004; 188(3):307–313. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.04.006.
124.
PerryAW, SosinM. Severe allergic reaction to Dermabond. Aesthet Surg J, 2009; 29(4):314–316. doi:10.1016/j.asj.2009.02.019.
125.
CookKA, WhiteAA, ShawDW. Patch testing ingredients of dermabond and other cyanoacrylate-containing adhesives. Dermatitis, 2019; 30(5):314–322. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000514.
KlineDG, HayesGJ. An experimental evaluation of the effect of a plastic adhesive, methyl 2-cyanoacrylate, on neural tissue. J Neurosurg, 1963; 20:647–654. doi:10.3171/jns.1963.20.8.0647.
128.
WoodwardSC, HerrmannJB, CameronJL, et al.Histotoxicity of cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive in the rat. Ann Surg, 1965; 162(1):113–122. doi:10.1097/00000658-196507000-00017.
129.
BorieE, RosasE, KuramochiG, et al.Oral applications of cyanoacrylate adhesives: a literature review. Biomed Res Int, 2019; 2019:8217602. doi:10.1155/2019/8217602.
130.
OchiaiAM, AraujoNM, MoraesSDTA, et al.The use of non-surgical glue to repair perineal first-degree lacerations in normal birth: a non-inferiority randomised trial. Women Birth, 2021; 34(5):e514–e519. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2020.09.018.
SassevilleD. Acrylates in contact dermatitis. Dermatitis, 2012; 23(1):6–16. doi:10.1097/der.0b013e31823d1b81.
133.
BjorknerB, NiklassonB. Influence of the vehicle on elicitation of contact allergic reactions to acrylic compounds in the guinea pig. Contact Dermatitis, 1984; 11(5):268–278. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1984.tb01008.x.
VollerLM, WarshawEM. Acrylates: new sources and new allergens. Clin Exp Dermatol, 2020; 45(3):277–283. doi:10.1111/ced.14093.
136.
GardeenS, HylwaS. A review of acrylates: super glue, nail adhesives, and diabetic pump adhesives increasing sensitization risk in women and children. Int J Womens Dermatol, 2020; 6(4):263–267. doi:10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.04.007.
137.
RegulaCG, Yag-HowardC. Suture products and techniques: what to use, where, and why. Dermatol Surg, 2015; 41(suppl 10):S187–S200. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000000492.
138.
BennettRG. Selection of wound closure materials. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1988; 18(4 Pt 1):619–637. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(88)70083-3.
139.
OrlinskyM, GoldbergRM, ChanL, et al.Cost analysis of stapling versus suturing for skin closure. Am J Emerg Med, 1995; 13(1):77–81. doi:10.1016/0735-6757(95)90248-1.
140.
MeiringL, CilliersK, BarryR, et al.A comparison of a disposable skin stapler and nylon sutures for wound closure. S Afr Med J, 1982; 62(11):371–372.
141.
dos SantosLR, FreitasCA, HojaijFC, et al.Prospective study using skin staplers in head and neck surgery. Am J Surg, 1995; 170(5):451–452. doi:10.1016/s0002-9610(99)80327-4.
142.
KhanAN, DayanPS, MillerS, et al.Cosmetic outcome of scalp wound closure with staples in the pediatric emergency department: a prospective, randomized trial. Pediatr Emerg Care, 2002; 18(3):171–173. doi:10.1097/00006565-200206000-00005.
143.
GeorgeTK, SimpsonDC. Skin wound closure with staples in the accident and emergency department. J R Coll Surg Edinb, 1985; 30(1):54–56.
144.
KanegayeJT, VanceCW, ChanL, et al.Comparison of skin stapling devices and standard sutures for pediatric scalp lacerations: a randomized study of cost and time benefits. J Pediatr, 1997; 130(5):808–813. doi:10.1016/s0022-3476(97)80025-x.
145.
Conde-SalazarL, ValksR, MalfeitoJE, et al.Contact dermatitis from the staples of neuroreflexotherapy. Contact Dermatitis, 2004; 51(4):217–218. doi:10.1111/j.0105-1873.2004.0424i.x.
WinnickiM, ShearNH. A systematic approach to systemic contact dermatitis and symmetric drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE): a closer look at these conditions and an approach to intertriginous eruptions. Am J Clin Dermatol, 2011; 12(3):171–180. doi:10.2165/11539080-000000000-00000.
151.
TamaiK, MitsumoriM, FujishiroS, et al.A case of allergic reaction to surgical metal clips inserted for postoperative boost irradiation in a patient undergoing breast-conserving therapy. Breast Cancer, 2001; 8(1):90–92. doi:10.1007/BF02967485.
152.
LhotkaCG, SzekeresT, Fritzer-SzekeresM, et al.Are allergic reactions to skin clips associated with delayed wound healing?Am J Surg, 1998; 176(4):320–323. doi:10.1016/s0002-9610(98)00197-4.
ThyssenJP, LinnebergA, MenneT, et al.The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population—prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 57(5):287–299. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01220.x.
155.
DeKovenJG, WarshawEM, ZugKA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2015–2016. Dermatitis, 2018; 29(6):297–309. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000417.
156.
DotterudLK, FalkES. Contact allergy in relation to hand eczema and atopic diseases in north Norwegian schoolchildren. Acta Paediatr, 1995; 84(4):402–406. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.1995.tb13659.x.
157.
VielufD. Epidemiological evaluation of the prevalence of atopic eczema in different cities of East of West Germany. Allergo J, 1993; 5:100.
158.
HaudrechyP, FoussereauJ, MantoutB, et al.Nickel release from nickel-plated metals and stainless steels. Contact Dermatitis, 1994; 31(4):249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1994.tb01997.x.
159.
WilliamsDF. Titanium as a metal for implantation. Part 2: biological properties and clinical applications. J Med Eng Technol, 1977; 1(5):266–270. doi:10.3109/03091907709162192.
160.
WilliamsDF. Titanium as a metal for implantation. Part 1: physical properties. J Med Eng Technol, 1977; 1(4):195–198.
161.
HarloffT, HönleW, HolzwarthU, et al.Titanium allergy or not? “Impurity” of titanium implant materials. Health, 2010; 2(4):306–310. doi:10.4236/health.2010.24045.
162.
TiesengaF, WangJ, CrewsC. Adverse reactions to titanium surgical staples in a patient after cholecystectomy. CRSLS e2014, 2014; 3056.
163.
StejskalV, HudecekR, StejskalJ, et al.Diagnosis and treatment of metal-induced side-effects. Neuro Endocrinol Lett, 2006; 27(suppl 1):7–16.
164.
NakashimaY, SunDH, TrindadeM, et al.Induction of macrophage C-C chemokine expression by titanium alloy and bone cement particles. J Bone Joint Surg (Br), 1999; 81(1):155–162.
165.
OkamuraT. A skin patch test for the diagnosis of titanium allergy. J Dent Res, 1999; 78:1135.
166.
Valentine-ThonE, SchiwaraHW. Validity of MELISA for metal sensitivity testin. Neuro Endocrinol Lett, 2003; 24(1–2):57–64.
167.
EdlichRF, GublerK, StevensHS, et al.Scientific basis for the selection of surgical staples and tissue adhesives for closure of skin wounds. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol, 2010; 29(4):327–337. doi:10.1615/jenvironpatholtoxicoloncol.v29.i4.50.
168.
NitscheJ, HowellC, HowellT. Skin closure with subcuticular absorbable staples after cesarean section is associated with decreased analgesic use. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2012; 285(4):979–983. doi:10.1007/s00404-011-2121-5.
169.
Schrufer-PolandTL, RuizMP, KassarS, et al.Incidence of wound complications in cesarean deliveries following closure with absorbable subcuticular staples versus conventional skin closure techniques. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2016; 206:53–56. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.501.
170.
FickJL, NovoRE, KirchhofN. Comparison of gross and histologic tissue responses of skin incisions closed by use of absorbable subcuticular staples, cutaneous metal staples, and polyglactin 910 suture in pigs. Am J Vet Res, 2005; 66(11):1975–1984. doi:10.2460/ajvr.2005.66.1975.
171.
Pineros-FernandezA, SalopekLS, RodeheaverPF, et al.A revolutionary advance in skin closure compared to current methods. J Long-Term Eff Med Implants, 2006; 16(1):19–27. doi:10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.v16.i1.30.
172.
SungCT, McGowanMA, MachlerBC, et al.Systemic treatments for allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis, 2019; 30(1):46–53. doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000435.
173.
Navarro-TriviñoFJ, Ruiz-VillaverdeR. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by surgical mesh after umbilical hernia surgery. Contact Dermatitis, 2021; 84(1):60–62. doi: 10.1111/cod.13677.
174.
LiuD, AhmetA, WardL, et al.A practical guide to the monitoring and management of the complications of systemic corticosteroid therapy. Allergy, Asthma Clin Immunol, 2013; 9(1):30. doi:10.1186/1710-1492-9-30.
