↓ Skip to main content

Effect of sternal closure with biological bone adhesive on pain visual analogue score and serum cytokine

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of sternal closure with biological bone adhesive on pain visual analogue score and serum cytokine
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13019-015-0230-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shahrul Hashim, Leow Yeen Chin, Sivakumar Krishnasamy, Pavai Sthaneswar, Raja Amin Raja Mokhtar

Abstract

Recently a biocompatible bone adhesive was introduced in addition to the sternal wires to expedite sternal union and improve patient recovery. In this study we aim to objectively assess the biomarker of pain in patient who received the biocompatible bone adhesive. A total of 62 patients who underwent sternotomy were prospectively randomised to receive either conventional wire closure (CWC); 32 patients or adhesive enhanced closure in addition to sternal wire (AEC); 30 patients. Patients were monitored postoperatively at certain time intervals for incisional pain, serum Interleukin-6 (IL-6) level, analgesia used and postoperative complications. All patients were followed up for 4 weeks. The post-operative pain scores with coughing were significantly higher in the CWC group at 24 hours and 48 hours. The postoperative IL 6 levels were significantly higher in the CWC group in comparison with the AEC group at 6 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours. There were no significant differences in term of additional analgesia used. No adverse events from adhesive bone cement were observed during follow up. Adhesive-enhanced sternal closure resulted in modest reduction of pain confirmed by reduction of pain biomarker. Justification of its routine use requires larger multicentre study.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 13 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 17 46%