比较 Tisseel® 纤维蛋白胶、氰基丙烯酸乙酯粘合剂、ReSure® 水凝胶密封剂和使用 8-0 VICRYL® 眼科缝线进行传统缝合所实现的结膜瓣与角膜固定强度。

IF 1.7 4区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Elodie M VerHulst, Roxanne M Rodriguez Galarza, Ian P Herring, Renata Velloso Ramos, Andrew R Kemper
{"title":"比较 Tisseel® 纤维蛋白胶、氰基丙烯酸乙酯粘合剂、ReSure® 水凝胶密封剂和使用 8-0 VICRYL® 眼科缝线进行传统缝合所实现的结膜瓣与角膜固定强度。","authors":"Elodie M VerHulst, Roxanne M Rodriguez Galarza, Ian P Herring, Renata Velloso Ramos, Andrew R Kemper","doi":"10.1111/vop.13197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine and compare the fixation strength of conjunctival pedicle flaps to cornea achieved via conventional ophthalmic suture and three different adhesive compounds.</p><p><strong>Animals studied: </strong>Ex vivo porcine globes.</p><p><strong>Procedures: </strong>Following a 6 mm wide 500-micron-restricted depth lamellar keratectomy, conjunctival pedicle flaps were secured to the keratectomy site with either 8-0 VICRYL® suture or one of three adhesive products, including Tisseel® bioadhesive, ReSure® synthetic adhesive, or ethyl cyanoacrylate adhesive (n = 10 per surgical group). Adhesive application protocol varied by product based upon adhesive biocompatibility. Corneoconjunctival tissues were then harvested, clamped in a tensile testing device, and loaded at a rate of 1 mm/s under video surveillance until the point of failure. Peak load was determined for each test and used to compare fixation strength between samples.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty conjunctival flaps were performed, with 6 omitted from evaluation due to dehiscence prior to tensile testing. Of the 34 flaps analyzed, 10 were secured with suture, 10 with cyanoacrylate, 8 with ReSure®, and 6 with Tisseel®. Flaps secured with suture withstood significantly higher applied tensile force compared with cyanoacrylate (p = .02474), ReSure® (p = .00000), and Tisseel® (p = .00002). Flaps secured with cyanoacrylate withstood significantly greater force than those secured with ReSure® and Tisseel® (p = .01194 and 0.01798, respectively). There was no significant difference in fixation strength between ReSure® and Tisseel® glue (p = .95675).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Conjunctival pedicle flap fixation using 8-0 VICRYL® suture fixation was able to withstand significantly greater maximum tensile force compared to ReSure®, Tisseel®, or cyanoacrylate adhesives. Fixation strength achieved with cyanoacrylate adhesive was significantly greater than that achieved with ReSure® or Tisseel®.</p>","PeriodicalId":23836,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of conjunctival pedicle flap to corneal fixation strength achieved by Tisseel® fibrin glue, ethyl cyanoacrylate adhesive, ReSure® hydrogel sealant, and conventional suturing with 8-0 VICRYL® ophthalmic suture.\",\"authors\":\"Elodie M VerHulst, Roxanne M Rodriguez Galarza, Ian P Herring, Renata Velloso Ramos, Andrew R Kemper\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/vop.13197\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine and compare the fixation strength of conjunctival pedicle flaps to cornea achieved via conventional ophthalmic suture and three different adhesive compounds.</p><p><strong>Animals studied: </strong>Ex vivo porcine globes.</p><p><strong>Procedures: </strong>Following a 6 mm wide 500-micron-restricted depth lamellar keratectomy, conjunctival pedicle flaps were secured to the keratectomy site with either 8-0 VICRYL® suture or one of three adhesive products, including Tisseel® bioadhesive, ReSure® synthetic adhesive, or ethyl cyanoacrylate adhesive (n = 10 per surgical group). Adhesive application protocol varied by product based upon adhesive biocompatibility. Corneoconjunctival tissues were then harvested, clamped in a tensile testing device, and loaded at a rate of 1 mm/s under video surveillance until the point of failure. Peak load was determined for each test and used to compare fixation strength between samples.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty conjunctival flaps were performed, with 6 omitted from evaluation due to dehiscence prior to tensile testing. Of the 34 flaps analyzed, 10 were secured with suture, 10 with cyanoacrylate, 8 with ReSure®, and 6 with Tisseel®. Flaps secured with suture withstood significantly higher applied tensile force compared with cyanoacrylate (p = .02474), ReSure® (p = .00000), and Tisseel® (p = .00002). Flaps secured with cyanoacrylate withstood significantly greater force than those secured with ReSure® and Tisseel® (p = .01194 and 0.01798, respectively). There was no significant difference in fixation strength between ReSure® and Tisseel® glue (p = .95675).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Conjunctival pedicle flap fixation using 8-0 VICRYL® suture fixation was able to withstand significantly greater maximum tensile force compared to ReSure®, Tisseel®, or cyanoacrylate adhesives. Fixation strength achieved with cyanoacrylate adhesive was significantly greater than that achieved with ReSure® or Tisseel®.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23836,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Veterinary ophthalmology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Veterinary ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/vop.13197\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/vop.13197","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的确定并比较通过传统眼科缝线和三种不同粘合剂实现的结膜瓣与角膜的固定强度:研究动物:活体猪球:在进行 6 毫米宽、500 微米限制深度的板层角膜切除术后,用 8-0 VICRYL® 缝线或三种粘合剂产品之一(包括 Tisseel® 生物粘合剂、ReSure® 合成粘合剂或氰基丙烯酸乙酯粘合剂)将结膜瓣固定在角膜切除部位(每个手术组 n = 10)。根据粘合剂的生物相容性,不同产品的粘合剂应用方案各不相同。然后采集角膜结膜组织,夹在拉伸测试装置中,在视频监控下以每秒 1 毫米的速度加载,直至达到失效点。确定每次测试的峰值载荷,并用于比较不同样本的固定强度:共有 40 个结膜瓣进行了拉伸试验,其中 6 个因在拉伸试验前开裂而未进行评估。在分析的 34 个皮瓣中,10 个用缝线固定,10 个用氰基丙烯酸酯固定,8 个用 ReSure® 固定,6 个用 Tisseel® 固定。与氰基丙烯酸酯(p = .02474)、ReSure®(p = .00000)和 Tisseel® (p = .00002)相比,用缝线固定的皮瓣能承受更高的拉力。使用氰基丙烯酸酯固定的皮瓣所承受的力明显大于使用 ReSure® 和 Tisseel® 固定的皮瓣(p = .01194 和 0.01798)。ReSure® 和 Tisseel® 胶水的固定强度没有明显差异(p = .95675):结论:与 ReSure®、Tisseel® 或氰基丙烯酸酯粘合剂相比,使用 8-0 VICRYL® 缝合线固定结膜窦瓣能够承受更大的最大拉力。使用氰基丙烯酸酯粘合剂达到的固定强度明显高于 ReSure® 或 Tisseel®。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of conjunctival pedicle flap to corneal fixation strength achieved by Tisseel® fibrin glue, ethyl cyanoacrylate adhesive, ReSure® hydrogel sealant, and conventional suturing with 8-0 VICRYL® ophthalmic suture.

Objective: To determine and compare the fixation strength of conjunctival pedicle flaps to cornea achieved via conventional ophthalmic suture and three different adhesive compounds.

Animals studied: Ex vivo porcine globes.

Procedures: Following a 6 mm wide 500-micron-restricted depth lamellar keratectomy, conjunctival pedicle flaps were secured to the keratectomy site with either 8-0 VICRYL® suture or one of three adhesive products, including Tisseel® bioadhesive, ReSure® synthetic adhesive, or ethyl cyanoacrylate adhesive (n = 10 per surgical group). Adhesive application protocol varied by product based upon adhesive biocompatibility. Corneoconjunctival tissues were then harvested, clamped in a tensile testing device, and loaded at a rate of 1 mm/s under video surveillance until the point of failure. Peak load was determined for each test and used to compare fixation strength between samples.

Results: Forty conjunctival flaps were performed, with 6 omitted from evaluation due to dehiscence prior to tensile testing. Of the 34 flaps analyzed, 10 were secured with suture, 10 with cyanoacrylate, 8 with ReSure®, and 6 with Tisseel®. Flaps secured with suture withstood significantly higher applied tensile force compared with cyanoacrylate (p = .02474), ReSure® (p = .00000), and Tisseel® (p = .00002). Flaps secured with cyanoacrylate withstood significantly greater force than those secured with ReSure® and Tisseel® (p = .01194 and 0.01798, respectively). There was no significant difference in fixation strength between ReSure® and Tisseel® glue (p = .95675).

Conclusions: Conjunctival pedicle flap fixation using 8-0 VICRYL® suture fixation was able to withstand significantly greater maximum tensile force compared to ReSure®, Tisseel®, or cyanoacrylate adhesives. Fixation strength achieved with cyanoacrylate adhesive was significantly greater than that achieved with ReSure® or Tisseel®.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Veterinary ophthalmology
Veterinary ophthalmology 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
37.50%
发文量
82
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: Veterinary Ophthalmology is a peer-reviewed, international journal that welcomes submission of manuscripts directed towards academic researchers of veterinary ophthalmology, specialists and general practitioners with a strong ophthalmology interest. Articles include those relating to all aspects of: Clinical and investigational veterinary and comparative ophthalmology; Prospective and retrospective studies or reviews of naturally occurring ocular disease in veterinary species; Experimental models of both animal and human ocular disease in veterinary species; Anatomic studies of the animal eye; Physiological studies of the animal eye; Pharmacological studies of the animal eye.
×
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