首页> 外文期刊>Aesthetic surgery journal >An in vivo comparison of barbed suture devices and conventional monofilament sutures for cosmetic skin closure: biomechanical wound strength and histology.
【24h】

An in vivo comparison of barbed suture devices and conventional monofilament sutures for cosmetic skin closure: biomechanical wound strength and histology.

机译:带刺的缝合装置与常规单丝缝合线用于美容性皮肤闭合的体内比较:生物力学伤口强度和组织学。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Very little biomechanical or histological data exist in the peer-reviewed literature comparing absorbable monofilament sutures to commercially-available knotless, absorbable barbed suture devices for cosmetic closure of skin incisions. OBJECTIVES: The authors compare two commercially-available knotless, barbed suture devices against a conventional monofilament suture in a porcine model for biomechanical wound strength and histological quality of healing. METHODS: This prospective randomized trial included 18 animals randomly assigned among three groups, with six in each. A total of 192 incisions were closed in a porcine in vivo model and assessed for biomechanical strength and histology at postoperative Days 0, 3, 10, and 21. Each animal received all three test devices in a randomized, three-way matched design. Immediately following euthanasia, the skin incisions were excised for ex vivo biomechanical testing. RESULTS: In the ex vivo analysis, Biosyn proved significantly stronger than the V-Loc 90 device at Day 0 and Quill Monoderm at Day 3. At no time point was there any difference in biomechanical strength between the two barbed suture devices. Differences in barb geometry, barb number, and helicity between the two barbed suture devices resulted in failure modes that were significantly different. All three test articles resulted in mild tissue reaction scores on histology. The V-Loc 90 device consistently had the lowest tissue reaction scores at all time periods, with the difference between the V-Loc 90 device and Quill being significant at postoperative Day 10. CONCLUSIONS: Knotless, absorbable barbed suture devices are a safe and efficacious alternative for cosmetic skin closures and yield wound strength and tissue reaction scores that are comparable to those from closures performed with absorbable monofilament sutures and secured with knots.
机译:背景:在同行评审的文献中,几乎没有任何生物力学或组织学数据将可吸收的单丝缝合线与市售的无结,可吸收的带刺缝合线装置进行皮肤切口的美容闭合比较。目的:作者在猪模型中比较了两种商业上可买到的无结,带刺的缝合设备与传统的单丝缝合设备的生物力学伤口强度和愈合的组织学质量。方法:这项前瞻性随机试验包括18只动物,随机分为三组,每组六只。在猪体内模型中合计192个切口,并在术后第0、3、10和21天评估其生物力学强度和组织学。每只动物以随机,三向匹配的设计接受所有三个测试装置。安乐死后,立即切开皮肤切口进行离体生物力学测试。结果:在离体分析中,Biosyn在第0天被证明比V-Loc 90装置和在第3天显着优于Quill Monoderm。在任何时候,两个带刺缝线装置之间的生物力学强度没有任何差异。两个带倒刺的缝合装置之间的倒刺几何形状,倒刺数量和螺旋度的差异导致失效模式明显不同。所有这三篇测试文章均在组织学上产生了轻度的组织反应评分。 V-Loc 90器械在所有时间段内始终具有最低的组织反应评分,在术后第10天,V-Loc 90器械和Quill之间的差异显着。结论:无结,可吸收的带刺缝合器械是安全有效的可以替代化妆品的皮肤闭合,其伤口强度和组织反应评分可与采用可吸收单丝缝线并通过结固定的闭合结果相媲美。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号