Surgical Wound InfectionAlexisNCT03365219
Alexis O-Ring Wound Retractor for the Prevention of Post-cesarean Surgical Site Infections
A study testing Alexis O-Ring Wound Retractor and Standard Surgical Retractors in people with Surgical Wound Infection, run by The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.
Trial summary
Post cesarean section surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication that can affect patient recovery and overall outcome. Several approaches have been studied to improve SSI rates such as timing of antibiotic administration and skin preparation. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Surgical Wound Infection
- What is being tested?
- Alexis O-Ring Wound Retractor and Standard Surgical Retractors
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 564 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Oct 2010to Oct 2013
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- maternal age of at least 18 years
- a gestational age of at least 24 0/7 wks by best obstetric estimate
- a viable gestation
- a non-emergent cesarean delivery
- a planned transverse skin incision
- Deliveries included: primary cesarean for failed induction, maternal request, or other obstetric indications; and repeat cesarean deliveries that were elective or had obstetric indications (such as spontaneous labor in a subject with a term gestation and with history of 2 or more prior cesarean deliveries)
Who cannot join
- chorioamnionitis
- chronic corticosteroid therapy
- prior abdominal vertical skin incision scar or planned vertical incision
- history of a prior wound infection or separation
- planned cesarean hysterectomy
- maternal or fetal complications requiring an emergent delivery
About this study
Official title: Alexis O-Ring Wound Retractor for the Prevention of Post-cesarean Surgical Site Infections: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Post cesarean section surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication that can affect patient recovery and overall outcome. Several approaches have been studied to improve SSI rates such as timing of antibiotic administration and skin preparation. Alexis retractors have been suggested as a reasonable option to decrease SSI. However, to date there is only one randomized controlled study assessing its efficacy. The aim of this study is to whether Alexis wound retractors are beneficial in preventing cesarean section SSI.
Read the detailed description
The study design was a randomized controlled study to evaluate wound infection rates in patients undergoing a cesarean delivery. The patients were randomized into two sub- groups; the first group received routine hand-held metal retractors as needed by the surgical team, and the second group received an Alexis Wound Retractor. Inclusion criteria included: maternal age of at least 18 years, a gestational age of at least 24 0/7 wks by best obstetric estimate, a viable gestation, a non-emergent cesarean delivery, and a planned transverse skin incision. Deliveries included: primary cesarean for failed induction, maternal request, or other obstetric indications; and repeat cesarean deliveries that were elective or had obstetric indications (such as spontaneous labor in a subject with a term gestation and with history of 2 or more prior cesarean deliveries). Exclusion criteria included chorioamnionitis, chronic corticosteroid therapy, a prior abdominal vertical skin incision scar or planned vertical incision, history of a prior wound infection or separation, a planned cesarean hysterectomy, or maternal or fetal complications requiring an emergent delivery.
Randomization was done using a web-based randomization generator. Variables were allocated as: 1 for Alexis, and 0 for conventional surgical retractors. Packages including consent forms, data sheets, and the randomized allocation were prepared for the entire study and were stored in one office. Study packets were prepared to include a sealed envelope indicating randomization to be opened after the consent form was signed. Only after randomization, the Alexis retractor was opened and placed on the surgical field.
Prior to initiation of the study, in-service sessions were conducted with OB surgical teams to facilitate the use of the retractors. Information provided included optimal use of the retractor and selection of the appropriate retractor size. The primary surgeon of each case was previously trained by the principle investigator in placement of the retractor on actual patients.
Once a decision was made to proceed with cesarean delivery, the subject was approached and offered to participate in the study. After the patient had been enrolled and consent forms signed, an allocated envelope for each study subject determined which arm of the study to which the patient would be randomized; no other management decisions was made as part of the RCT. Surgical decisions were independent of the patient's designated study arm and retractor type. Such decisions included: type of anesthesia, length of transverse skin incision , method of tissue dissection (blunt vs. instrumental), creation of bladder flap, size and nature of uterine incision (transverse, low vertical, classical, J-type, T-incision), surgical material used, exteriorization of the uterus, manual vs. spontaneous delivery of placenta, layer closure techniques (bladder flap, peritoneum, subcutaneous tissue), and skin closure technique (staples, subcuticular sutures). Skin preoperative preparation was performed as standard with ChloraPrep® Applicator (2% Chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol). Intravenous antibiotics were given preoperatively in accordance to national guidelines (12). The primary outcome of this study was the development of a surgical site infection after cesarean delivery within two weeks after cesarean.
Incisions were checked daily in-house. However, the exams that were used in this study to determine the occurrences of SSI were the first exam done in the outpatient setting for removal of staples (post op days 5 - 7), and the two week post partum visit (post op days 14 - 18). SSIs were diagnosed according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria.(13). The most commonly seen characteristics were purulent drainage or localized swelling and/or redness of the surgical wound.
In addition, other wound complications were also assessed and included: seroma (wounds with clear drainage) and/or hematomas. Other secondary outcomes included skin time to uterine incision (minutes) , exteriorization of the uterus(yes, no), total operative time (minutes), estimated blood loss (mL) estimated by the primary surgeon, and postoperative pain based on a subjective 1-10 pain scale, assessed 4 times daily while hospitalized and at the outpatient visits previously mentioned.
An initial sample size estimate was performed using the frequentist approach with an assumption of power 80% and Type 1 error = 5% (2-sided). The primary outcome of the study is expected to occur in 15% of women in the "usual care" group. In order to detect a 50% reduction (15% to 7.5%) in the rate of wound complications with the use of the Alexis retractor, a total sample size of 564 women will be needed (282 per group). The planned study was to be carried out at two distinct sites: the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston (UTMB) and the University of Texas in Houston. The Institutional Review Board of UTMB-Galveston IRB # 10-188 approved the study.
- Conditions
- Surgical Wound Infection
- Being tested
- Alexis O-Ring Wound Retractor, Standard Surgical Retractors
- Keywords
- Surgical Site Infection, Cesarean delivery infection
- Medical subject headings
- Surgical Wound Infection
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Alexis O-Ring Wound RetractorDevice
A flexible self-retaining plastic Alexis retractor was used in place of standard surgical retractors.
Standard Surgical RetractorsOther
Routine hand-held metal retractors as needed by the surgical team
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Alexis Retractor | Experimental | This group received an Alexis O-Ring Wound Retractor during cesarean delivery. Receives: Device: Alexis O-Ring Wound Retractor |
| Standard Surgical Retractors | Active comparator | This group received routine hand-held metal retractors as needed by the surgical team during cesarean delivery. Receives: Other: Standard Surgical Retractors |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Surgical Site Infection
Assessed as present or absent. Defined as the development of wound infection, seroma, or other wound disruption in patients who underwent a cesarean delivery
Measured: Time of surgery up to 14 post operative days
Secondary outcomes (4)
Postoperative pain
Patients are asked to report pain on a scale of 1-10, 1 no pain and 10 the worst pain.
Measured: Time of surgery up to 14 post operative days
Estimated blood loss
Defined as the amount of blood loss during the cesarean delivery as estimated by the operating surgeons.
Measured: intraoperative assessment
Uterus exteriorization
Quantified as yes or no; defined as whether or not the surgeons' exteriorized the uterus extra-corporally (removed from abdominal cavity) at any time of the cesarean delivery
Measured: intraoperative assessment
Total operative time
Defined as the total length of time in minutes required to perform the cesarean delivery from time of initial skin incision to completion of skin closure.
Measured: intraoperative assessment
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Dec 2017
- Study startOct 2010
- Primary completionOct 2013
- Study completionOct 2013
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Surgical Wound InfectionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by The University of Texas Medical Branch, GalvestonThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 564 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Gayle L Olson, MD, Principal investigator, University of Texas Medical Branch in GalvestonGeorge Saade, MD, Study chair, University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03365219
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 10-188
- Acronym
- Alexis
- Status last verified
- May 2018
- First submitted
- 9 Jun 2015
- Last updated
- 19 Oct 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Menacker F, Hamilton BE. Recent trends in cesarean delivery in the United States. NCHS Data Brief. 2010 Mar;(35):1-8.
PubMed 20334736Kirkland KB, Briggs JP, Trivette SL, Wilkinson WE, Sexton DJ. The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999 Nov;20(11):725-30. doi: 10.1086/501572.
PubMed 10580621Stone PW, Braccia D, Larson E. Systematic review of economic analyses of health care-associated infections. Am J Infect Control. 2005 Nov;33(9):501-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2005.04.246.
PubMed 16260325Moir-Bussy B, Hutton R, Thompson J. Wound infection after caesarean section. Nurs Times. 1985 Jun 5-11;81(23):suppl 13-4. No abstract available.
PubMed 3847906Rauk PN. Educational intervention, revised instrument sterilization methods, and comprehensive preoperative skin preparation protocol reduce cesarean section surgical site infections. Am J Infect Control. 2010 May;38(4):319-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2009.10.004. Epub 2010 Feb 19.
PubMed 20171756Schneid-Kofman N, Sheiner E, Levy A, Holcberg G. Risk factors for wound infection following cesarean deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005 Jul;90(1):10-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.03.020.
PubMed 15913620Tran TS, Jamulitrat S, Chongsuvivatwong V, Geater A. Risk factors for postcesarean surgical site infection. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Mar;95(3):367-71. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00540-2.
PubMed 10711546Weiss JL, Malone FD, Emig D, Ball RH, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, Saade G, Eddleman K, Carter SM, Craigo SD, Carr SR, D'Alton ME; FASTER Research Consortium. Obesity, obstetric complications and cesarean delivery rate--a population-based screening study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Apr;190(4):1091-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.09.058.
PubMed 15118648Cedergren MI. Maternal morbid obesity and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Feb;103(2):219-24. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000107291.46159.00.
PubMed 14754687ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 120: Use of prophylactic antibiotics in labor and delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jun;117(6):1472-1483. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182238c31. No abstract available.
PubMed 21606770Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control. 1999 Apr;27(2):97-132; quiz 133-4; discussion 96.
PubMed 10196487Cheng KP, Roslani AC, Sehha N, Kueh JH, Law CW, Chong HY, Arumugam K. ALEXIS O-Ring wound retractor vs conventional wound protection for the prevention of surgical site infections in colorectal resections(1). Colorectal Dis. 2012 Jun;14(6):e346-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02943.x.
PubMed 22568647
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Oct 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Alexis O-Ring Wound Retractor for the Prevention of Post-cesarean Surgical Site Infections: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03365219
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Alexis / 10-188
- Conditions
- Surgical Wound Infection
- Keywords
- Surgical Site Infection, Cesarean delivery infection
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 564 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Texas Medical Branch, GalvestonUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Oct 2010 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Oct 2013 (actual)
- Study completion
- Oct 2013 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Dec 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Post cesarean section surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication that can affect patient recovery and overall outcome. Several approaches have been studied to improve SSI rates such as timing of antibiotic administration and skin preparation. Alexis retractors have been suggested as a reasonable option to decrease SSI. However, to date there is only one randomized controlled study assessing its efficacy. The aim of this study is to whether Alexis wound retractors are beneficial in preventing cesarean section SSI.
Detailed description
The study design was a randomized controlled study to evaluate wound infection rates in patients undergoing a cesarean delivery. The patients were randomized into two sub- groups; the first group received routine hand-held metal retractors as needed by the surgical team, and the second group received an Alexis Wound Retractor. Inclusion criteria included: maternal age of at least 18 years, a gestational age of at least 24 0/7 wks by best obstetric estimate, a viable gestation, a non-emergent cesarean delivery, and a planned transverse skin incision. Deliveries included: primary cesarean for failed induction, maternal request, or other obstetric indications; and repeat cesarean deliveries that were elective or had obstetric indications (such as spontaneous labor in a subject with a term gestation and with history of 2 or more prior cesarean deliveries). Exclusion criteria included chorioamnionitis, chronic corticosteroid therapy, a prior abdominal vertical skin incision scar or planned vertical incision, history of a prior wound infection or separation, a planned cesarean hysterectomy, or maternal or fetal complications requiring an emergent delivery.
Randomization was done using a web-based randomization generator. Variables were allocated as: 1 for Alexis, and 0 for conventional surgical retractors. Packages including consent forms, data sheets, and the randomized allocation were prepared for the entire study and were stored in one office. Study packets were prepared to include a sealed envelope indicating randomization to be opened after the consent form was signed. Only after randomization, the Alexis retractor was opened and placed on the surgical field.
Prior to initiation of the study, in-service sessions were conducted with OB surgical teams to facilitate the use of the retractors. Information provided included optimal use of the retractor and selection of the appropriate retractor size. The primary surgeon of each case was previously trained by the principle investigator in placement of the retractor on actual patients.
Once a decision was made to proceed with cesarean delivery, the subject was approached and offered to participate in the study. After the patient had been enrolled and consent forms signed, an allocated envelope for each study subject determined which arm of the study to which the patient would be randomized; no other management decisions was made as part of the RCT. Surgical decisions were independent of the patient's designated study arm and retractor type. Such decisions included: type of anesthesia, length of transverse skin incision , method of tissue dissection (blunt vs. instrumental), creation of bladder flap, size and nature of uterine incision (transverse, low vertical, classical, J-type, T-incision), surgical material used, exteriorization of the uterus, manual vs. spontaneous delivery of placenta, layer closure techniques (bladder flap, peritoneum, subcutaneous tissue), and skin closure technique (staples, subcuticular sutures). Skin preoperative preparation was performed as standard with ChloraPrep® Applicator (2% Chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol). Intravenous antibiotics were given preoperatively in accordance to national guidelines (12). The primary outcome of this study was the development of a surgical site infection after cesarean delivery within two weeks after cesarean.
Incisions were checked daily in-house. However, the exams that were used in this study to determine the occurrences of SSI were the first exam done in the outpatient setting for removal of staples (post op days 5 - 7), and the two week post partum visit (post op days 14 - 18). SSIs were diagnosed according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria.(13). The most commonly seen characteristics were purulent drainage or localized swelling and/or redness of the surgical wound.
In addition, other wound complications were also assessed and included: seroma (wounds with clear drainage) and/or hematomas. Other secondary outcomes included skin time to uterine incision (minutes) , exteriorization of the uterus(yes, no), total operative time (minutes), estimated blood loss (mL) estimated by the primary surgeon, and postoperative pain based on a subjective 1-10 pain scale, assessed 4 times daily while hospitalized and at the outpatient visits previously mentioned.
An initial sample size estimate was performed using the frequentist approach with an assumption of power 80% and Type 1 error = 5% (2-sided). The primary outcome of the study is expected to occur in 15% of women in the "usual care" group. In order to detect a 50% reduction (15% to 7.5%) in the rate of wound complications with the use of the Alexis retractor, a total sample size of 564 women will be needed (282 per group). The planned study was to be carried out at two distinct sites: the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston (UTMB) and the University of Texas in Houston. The Institutional Review Board of UTMB-Galveston IRB # 10-188 approved the study.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Alexis Retractor | Experimental | Device: Alexis O-Ring Wound RetractorThis group received an Alexis O-Ring Wound Retractor during cesarean delivery. |
| Standard Surgical Retractors | Active comparator | Other: Standard Surgical RetractorsThis group received routine hand-held metal retractors as needed by the surgical team during cesarean delivery. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- maternal age of at least 18 years
- a gestational age of at least 24 0/7 wks by best obstetric estimate
- a viable gestation
- a non-emergent cesarean delivery
- a planned transverse skin incision
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- chorioamnionitis
- chronic corticosteroid therapy
- prior abdominal vertical skin incision scar or planned vertical incision
- history of a prior wound infection or separation
- planned cesarean hysterectomy
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Alexis O-Ring Wound RetractorA flexible self-retaining plastic Alexis retractor was used in place of standard surgical retractors. | Device | Alexis Retractor |
| Standard Surgical RetractorsRoutine hand-held metal retractors as needed by the surgical team | Other | Standard Surgical Retractors |
Primary outcome
Surgical Site Infection
Time frame: Time of surgery up to 14 post operative days
Assessed as present or absent. Defined as the development of wound infection, seroma, or other wound disruption in patients who underwent a cesarean delivery
4 secondary outcomes
Postoperative pain
Time frame: Time of surgery up to 14 post operative days
Estimated blood loss
Time frame: intraoperative assessment
Uterus exteriorization
Time frame: intraoperative assessment
Total operative time
Time frame: intraoperative assessment
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Oct 2018.
- Background: PubMed 20334736Menacker F, Hamilton BE. Recent trends in cesarean delivery in the United States. NCHS Data Brief. 2010 Mar;(35):1-8.
- Background: PubMed 10580621Kirkland KB, Briggs JP, Trivette SL, Wilkinson WE, Sexton DJ. The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999 Nov;20(11):725-30. doi: 10.1086/501572.
- Background: PubMed 16260325Stone PW, Braccia D, Larson E. Systematic review of economic analyses of health care-associated infections. Am J Infect Control. 2005 Nov;33(9):501-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2005.04.246.
- Background: PubMed 3847906Moir-Bussy B, Hutton R, Thompson J. Wound infection after caesarean section. Nurs Times. 1985 Jun 5-11;81(23):suppl 13-4. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 20171756Rauk PN. Educational intervention, revised instrument sterilization methods, and comprehensive preoperative skin preparation protocol reduce cesarean section surgical site infections. Am J Infect Control. 2010 May;38(4):319-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2009.10.004. Epub 2010 Feb 19.
- Background: PubMed 15913620Schneid-Kofman N, Sheiner E, Levy A, Holcberg G. Risk factors for wound infection following cesarean deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005 Jul;90(1):10-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.03.020.
- Background: PubMed 10711546Tran TS, Jamulitrat S, Chongsuvivatwong V, Geater A. Risk factors for postcesarean surgical site infection. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Mar;95(3):367-71. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00540-2.
- Background: PubMed 15118648Weiss JL, Malone FD, Emig D, Ball RH, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, Saade G, Eddleman K, Carter SM, Craigo SD, Carr SR, D'Alton ME; FASTER Research Consortium. Obesity, obstetric complications and cesarean delivery rate--a population-based screening study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Apr;190(4):1091-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.09.058.
- Background: PubMed 14754687Cedergren MI. Maternal morbid obesity and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Feb;103(2):219-24. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000107291.46159.00.
- Background: PubMed 21606770ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 120: Use of prophylactic antibiotics in labor and delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jun;117(6):1472-1483. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182238c31. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 10196487Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control. 1999 Apr;27(2):97-132; quiz 133-4; discussion 96.
- Results publication: PubMed 22568647Cheng KP, Roslani AC, Sehha N, Kueh JH, Law CW, Chong HY, Arumugam K. ALEXIS O-Ring wound retractor vs conventional wound protection for the prevention of surgical site infections in colorectal resections(1). Colorectal Dis. 2012 Jun;14(6):e346-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02943.x.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Surgical Wound Infection
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Pilot Study on the Effectiveness and Safety of OPTILENE® SILVER MESH ELASTIC in Prevention of Surgical Site Infection (SSI) and Incisional Hernia (IH)
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm, Morbid Obesity
Recruiting
Safety and Efficacy of NTP in Thyroid Surgery: Pilot Study on Morbidity Prevention and Adjuvant Oncological Control
Thyroid Diseases, Wound Healing
RecruitingObservational study
Novosyn® CHD vs Polyglactin 910 Suture to Close Wounds After Emergency or Elective Laparotomy or Laparoscopic Surgery
Surgical Site Infection
Not yet recruiting
Safety Assessment of Placing a Single Dental Implant Without Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Simple Cases: A Pilot Study
Tooth Loss and Rehabillitation, Dental Implant Failure
Not yet recruitingPhase 3
Efficacy of Integrating Next Generation Sequencing for Treatment of Surgical Site Infection After Fracture Fixation:
Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), Surgical Site Infection (SSI)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Gayle L Olson, MD principal investigator
University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston
George Saade, MD study chair
University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Alexis O-Ring Wound Retractor and Standard Surgical Retractors in people with Surgical Wound Infection, run by The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Oct 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Surgical Site Infection (time frame: Time of surgery up to 14 post operative days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03365219, which also lists 12 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Oct 2018.