Comparison of V‐Loc™ 180 wound closure device and Quill™ PDO knotless tissue‐closure device for intradermal closure in a porcine <i>in vivo</i> model: Evaluation of biomechanical wound strength

Gingras, Kristen; Zaruby, Jeffrey; Maul, Don

doi:10.1002/jbm.b.32670

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Single-layer closure with barbed sutures was chosen because this is a common application of the material. 10,14,16,17,21,22 The V-Loc suture had a mean reduction percentage in lumen diameter of 11%, which is in agreement with previous studies. 2,6,7 In previous work, a luminal percentage reduction after EPF of between 4.7% and 16% has been shown, depending on the location and technique of measurement.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Some construction time may be saved by the use of a double‐layer closure with line reversal, but this has been shown to be no different from a standard double‐layer closure and is not routinely used in the authors’ hospital. Single‐layer closure with barbed sutures was chosen because this is a common application of the material …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…15,16 Barbed suture material has also been used experimentally for closure of jejunal and colonic enterotomy, gastrotomy, incisional gastropexy, tracheal resection and anastomosis, and abdominal wall closure, with similar success to conventional suture material. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23] When applied to the diaphragm musculature, especially in a compromised patient, barbed suture material could offer an advantage to traditional intracorporeal sutures by eliminating difficult knot tying, enhancing suture line security and, thus, efficiency of the procedure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ex vivo Biomechanical Comparison of V‐Loc 180® Absorbable Wound Closure Device and Standard Polyglyconate Suture for Diaphragmatic Herniorrhaphy in a Canine Model

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each day of prolonged wound drainage increases the risk of infection, thereby justifying strategies to improve the seal of skin margins . Limited research results have been published regarding the biomechanical properties and watertight nature of absorbable monofilament sutures compared with knotless, absorbable barbed suture devices in canine skin …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9,11,15 Limited research results have been published regarding the biomechanical properties and watertight nature of absorbable monofilament sutures compared with knotless, absorbable barbed suture devices in canine skin. [16][17][18] The first objective of this study was to evaluate the mechanical properties, mode of failure, and end point tensile strength of continuous intradermal suture lines closed with unidirectional barbed suture terminated with a single end pass vs closure with monofilament suture terminated with an Aberdeen knot. The second objective of this study was to evaluate the watertight nature of the continuous intradermal suture lines (monofilament vs barbed).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ex vivo comparison of intradermal closures with conventional monofilament suture vs unidirectional barbed suture in dogs

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the mechanical properties, strength, and quality of seal provided by continuous intradermal suture lines closed with barbed suture vs monofilament suture. Study design Experimental study. Sample population Forty‐eight full‐thickness wounds in canine cadavers. Methods Four‐centimeter‐long parasagittal cutaneous wounds were created in canine cadavers. Each intradermal closure was closed with smooth monofilament suture and terminated with a 2 + 1 Aberdeen knot (n = 24) or a unidirectional barbed suture terminated with a single end pass (n = 24). Wounds (n = 12/group) were harvested, and a servohydraulic machine applied tensile load perpendicular to the long axis of the suture line. A load–displacement curve was generated; maximum load, displacement, stiffness, and mode of construct failure were recorded. Harvested wounds were placed in a watertight construct to measure the volume of fluid leaking over 3 minutes at 1.0 ± 0.1 psi. Results Stiffness did not differ between constructs (P > .05). Incisions closed with monofilament sutures sustained higher maximum load (311.21 N ± 87.40) and displacement at failure (21.19 mm ± 4.51) compared with those with barbed sutures (116.38 N ± 42.82 and 15.03 mm ± 2.32, respectively, P < .05). Closures with monofilament sutures leaked more (4.38 mL ± 7.90) compared with those with barbed sutures (0.15 mL ± 0.43, P < .05). Conclusion Monofilament sutures resulted in stronger constructs, whereas barbed suture constructs provided a better watertight seal. Clinical significance While unidirectional barbed sutures may improve watertight skin closure, surgeons should consider using conventional monofilament sutures when mechanical strength of the closure is of primary concern.

show abstract

Comparison of V‐Loc™ 180 wound closure device and Quill™ PDO knotless tissue‐closure device for intradermal closure in a porcine in vivo model: Evaluation of biomechanical wound strength

Abstract: In this study, V-Loc™ 180 device was significantly stronger than Quill™ PDO device during the critical phases of wound healing in skin.

Cited by 20 publications

References 13 publications

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

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

Ex vivo Biomechanical Comparison of V‐Loc 180® Absorbable Wound Closure Device and Standard Polyglyconate Suture for Diaphragmatic Herniorrhaphy in a Canine Model

Ex vivo comparison of intradermal closures with conventional monofilament suture vs unidirectional barbed suture in dogs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About