Ex vivo comparison of barbed sutures for pelvic flexure enterotomy in horses.

M. Sinovich, D. Archer, N. Meunier, P. Kelly
{"title":"Ex vivo comparison of barbed sutures for pelvic flexure enterotomy in horses.","authors":"M. Sinovich, D. Archer, N. Meunier, P. Kelly","doi":"10.1111/vsu.13353","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nTo evaluate two different barbed sutures for closure of pelvic flexure enterotomies and compare results achieved with two previously described closure techniques.\n\n\nSTUDY DESIGN\nEx vivo.\n\n\nSAMPLE POPULATION\nTwenty-four fresh cadaver adult equine large colons.\n\n\nMETHODS\nCadavers were randomly assigned to four closure groups (n = 6 each group): single-layer absorbable suture, double-layer absorbable suture, single-layer unidirectional barbed suture, or single-layer bidirectional barbed suture. Construction time, luminal reduction (percentage), bursting pressure, and method of failure were measured. Cost, leakage, exposed suture, and general appearance were recorded. Comparisons were performed with one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Bonferroni test (P < .05).\n\n\nRESULTS\nDouble-layer absorbable closure had the highest bursting pressure (mean = 178.5 mm Hg, SD = 9.79, P < .001) but took more time (P = .001) compared with all other groups. The construction time of both barbed suture closures did not differ from the single-layer closure (P > .06). Bursting strengths of both unidirectional (mean = 91.6 mm Hg, SD = 5.57) and bidirectional (mean = 87.5 mm Hg, SD = 8.69) barbed sutures were lower (P > .006 for both) than those of both single- (mean = 117.6 mm Hg, SD = 11.69) and double-layer (mean = 178.5 mm Hg, SD = 9.79) closures. Unidirectional barbed suture closure had a reduction in lumen diameter (P = .004) compared with bidirectional and single-layer closures.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nEnterotomy closures with the two different barbed suture patterns were comparable in bursting strength and construction time. However, the barbed suture patterns had lower bursting strength compared with traditional single- and double-layer closures. Unidirectional barbed suture closure also reduced lumen diameter.\n\n\nCLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE\nClosure of a large colon enterotomy with barbed suture patterns may be less secure than single- and double-layer suture closure.","PeriodicalId":123280,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary surgery : VS","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary surgery : VS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13353","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate two different barbed sutures for closure of pelvic flexure enterotomies and compare results achieved with two previously described closure techniques. STUDY DESIGN Ex vivo. SAMPLE POPULATION Twenty-four fresh cadaver adult equine large colons. METHODS Cadavers were randomly assigned to four closure groups (n = 6 each group): single-layer absorbable suture, double-layer absorbable suture, single-layer unidirectional barbed suture, or single-layer bidirectional barbed suture. Construction time, luminal reduction (percentage), bursting pressure, and method of failure were measured. Cost, leakage, exposed suture, and general appearance were recorded. Comparisons were performed with one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Bonferroni test (P < .05). RESULTS Double-layer absorbable closure had the highest bursting pressure (mean = 178.5 mm Hg, SD = 9.79, P < .001) but took more time (P = .001) compared with all other groups. The construction time of both barbed suture closures did not differ from the single-layer closure (P > .06). Bursting strengths of both unidirectional (mean = 91.6 mm Hg, SD = 5.57) and bidirectional (mean = 87.5 mm Hg, SD = 8.69) barbed sutures were lower (P > .006 for both) than those of both single- (mean = 117.6 mm Hg, SD = 11.69) and double-layer (mean = 178.5 mm Hg, SD = 9.79) closures. Unidirectional barbed suture closure had a reduction in lumen diameter (P = .004) compared with bidirectional and single-layer closures. CONCLUSION Enterotomy closures with the two different barbed suture patterns were comparable in bursting strength and construction time. However, the barbed suture patterns had lower bursting strength compared with traditional single- and double-layer closures. Unidirectional barbed suture closure also reduced lumen diameter. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Closure of a large colon enterotomy with barbed suture patterns may be less secure than single- and double-layer suture closure.
马盆腔屈曲肠切开术中倒钩缝合线的离体比较。
目的评价两种不同的倒钩缝合线用于盆腔屈曲肠切开术的闭合,并比较两种先前描述的闭合技术的效果。研究设计:体内实验。24具新鲜成年马尸体,大结肠。方法将标本随机分为4组,每组6例:单层可吸收缝合、双层可吸收缝合、单层单向倒刺缝合、单层双向倒刺缝合。测量了施工时间、管道压缩(百分比)、爆破压力和破坏方式。记录费用、渗漏、暴露缝线和总体外观。比较采用单因素方差分析和事后Bonferroni检验(P .06)。单向(平均= 91.6 mm Hg, SD = 5.57)和双向(平均= 87.5 mm Hg, SD = 8.69)倒刺缝线的破裂强度均较低(P < 0.05)。而单层(平均值= 117.6 mm Hg, SD = 11.69)和双层(平均值= 178.5 mm Hg, SD = 9.79)闭包的结果要明显好。与双向和单层缝合相比,单向倒刺缝合能减少管腔直径(P = 0.004)。结论两种不同的倒钩缝合方式在破肠强度和缝合时间上具有可比性。然而,与传统的单层和双层缝合方式相比,倒钩缝合方式的破裂强度较低。单向倒刺缝合也可减小管腔直径。临床意义:在大结肠肠切开术中,倒钩缝合方式可能比单层缝合和双层缝合更不安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信