A Comparison of Barbed Suture Versus Traditional Techniques for Muscle Belly Repair.
barbed sutures
biomechanical study
muscle belly
tendon repair
wound closure
Journal
Hand (New York, N.Y.)
ISSN: 1558-9455
Titre abrégé: Hand (N Y)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101264149
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2019
Jan 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
20
9
2018
medline:
6
5
2019
entrez:
20
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The use of barbed sutures in wound closure and tendon repair has been previously been studied with improved results over traditional suture material. We examine the use of barbed suture in muscle belly repair in a custom configuration, comparing it with traditional configurations and a control. Twenty-five matched porcine psoas muscles were assigned to 5 different test groups: Mason-Allen with #1 Ethibond, Figure of Eight Allen with #1 Ethibond, Modified Kessler with #1 Ethibond, Custom Configuration with #2 Barbed PDS, Custom Configuration with #1 Ethibond. Repair was performed on the cut edge of muscle, with the free end of the suture anchored to a fixed base, forming a single-sided repair. An Instron 8874 tensiometer was used to linearly distract the repair to failure at 1 mm/s after 1 N preload. Five samples of each group were run, comparing load to failure and distraction at 10 N. Repair with barbed suture in custom configuration had statistically significantly greater load to failure than all other methods. It also showed statistically significant less displacement at 10 N of force than all other methods of repair except the Mason-Allen repair with #1 Ethibond. Mode of failure for traditional techniques was suture pull-through with tissue loss. Failure with barbed suture was through suture pullout without tissue loss. Custom configuration with a barbed suture increases the load to failure and decreases displacement of the repair site at 10 N of force. In addition, when the suture does pull out, it does so with minimal tissue loss.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The use of barbed sutures in wound closure and tendon repair has been previously been studied with improved results over traditional suture material. We examine the use of barbed suture in muscle belly repair in a custom configuration, comparing it with traditional configurations and a control.
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-five matched porcine psoas muscles were assigned to 5 different test groups: Mason-Allen with #1 Ethibond, Figure of Eight Allen with #1 Ethibond, Modified Kessler with #1 Ethibond, Custom Configuration with #2 Barbed PDS, Custom Configuration with #1 Ethibond. Repair was performed on the cut edge of muscle, with the free end of the suture anchored to a fixed base, forming a single-sided repair. An Instron 8874 tensiometer was used to linearly distract the repair to failure at 1 mm/s after 1 N preload. Five samples of each group were run, comparing load to failure and distraction at 10 N.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Repair with barbed suture in custom configuration had statistically significantly greater load to failure than all other methods. It also showed statistically significant less displacement at 10 N of force than all other methods of repair except the Mason-Allen repair with #1 Ethibond. Mode of failure for traditional techniques was suture pull-through with tissue loss. Failure with barbed suture was through suture pullout without tissue loss.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Custom configuration with a barbed suture increases the load to failure and decreases displacement of the repair site at 10 N of force. In addition, when the suture does pull out, it does so with minimal tissue loss.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30227727
doi: 10.1177/1558944718798853
pmc: PMC6346357
doi:
Substances chimiques
Ethibond
0
Polyethylene Terephthalates
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
91-94Références
Orthopedics. 2005 Oct;28(10):1187-90
pubmed: 16237883
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2014 Jan;39(1):40-5
pubmed: 23695149
J Orthop Traumatol. 2015 Sep;16(3):251-7
pubmed: 25628013
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990 Mar;72(2):293-7
pubmed: 2312572
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Nov;124(5):1551-8
pubmed: 20009841
Ann Plast Surg. 2014 Sep;73(3):333-5
pubmed: 24625509
Am J Sports Med. 1999 Mar-Apr;27(2):222-9
pubmed: 10102105
Clin Sports Med. 1983 Mar;2(1):167-82
pubmed: 6627415
Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi. 1988 Apr;62(4):415-25
pubmed: 3404016
Sports Med. 1993 Feb;15(2):78-89
pubmed: 8446826
Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi. 1992 Sep;66(9):931-48
pubmed: 1447526
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Sep;87(9):1303-5
pubmed: 16129763