OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knot integrity of 3 commonly used sutures in sacrocolpopexy that were tied conventionally (by hand) and robotically. STUDY DESIGN: Knots were tied with polyglactin 910, polypropylene, and polyester, with 5-6 knots tied, depending on the suture used. We compared the knots that were subjected to tensile force until the suture broke or untied. RESULTS: The mean force that was required for the suture to untie was 47.7 +/- 18.8 (SD) Newtons and was seen only among the robotically tied polyglactin 910 knots. Robotically tied polyglactin 910 knots were significantly weaker than all other robotic and conventional knots that were tested (P < .05). The tying modality and material interaction was significant (P < .001), which suggests that the effect of suture material varied, depending on the tying modality. CONCLUSION: Knot failure rates for conventional or robotically tied suture varied based on the suture material that was used.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knot integrity of 3 commonly used sutures in sacrocolpopexy that were tied conventionally (by hand) and robotically. STUDY DESIGN: Knots were tied with polyglactin 910, polypropylene, and polyester, with 5-6 knots tied, depending on the suture used. We compared the knots that were subjected to tensile force until the suture broke or untied. RESULTS: The mean force that was required for the suture to untie was 47.7 +/- 18.8 (SD) Newtons and was seen only among the robotically tied polyglactin 910 knots. Robotically tied polyglactin 910 knots were significantly weaker than all other robotic and conventional knots that were tested (P < .05). The tying modality and material interaction was significant (P < .001), which suggests that the effect of suture material varied, depending on the tying modality. CONCLUSION:Knot failure rates for conventional or robotically tied suture varied based on the suture material that was used.
Authors: Chunfeng Zhao; Chung-Chen Hsu; Tamami Moriya; Andrew R Thoreson; Steven S Cha; Steven L Moran; Kai-Nan An; Peter C Amadio Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Omar F Dueñas-Garcia; Gina M Sullivan; Katherine Leung; Kristen L Billiar; Michael K Flynn Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Stefan Neuhofer; Karl Wieser; Georg Lajtai; Daniel Müller; Christian Gerber; Dominik C Meyer Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Xytilis Avoine; Bertrand Lussier; Vladimir Brailovski; Karine Inaekyan; Guy Beauchamp Journal: Can J Vet Res Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 1.310
Authors: Ali Akdemir; Enes Taylan; Ahmet Mete Ergenoğlu; Ahmet Özgür Yeniel; Fatih Şendağ; Mehmet Kemal Öztekin Journal: Turk J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-12-15