BACKGROUND: Leakage is one of the major complications in gastrointestinal surgery. This preliminary study compared a new barbed absorbable thread for gastrointestinal sutures with monofil suture material in a cadaver model. METHODS: In this study, mechanical experiments were performed in 20 recently deceased individuals. Incisions were made in the small intestine, colon, and stomach, and then sutures were created with the V-Loc closure device and monofil suture material. Intestinal bursting pressure was measured by inserting a balloon and slowly filling it with air until there was a dehiscence, or wall or suture rupture. RESULTS: The bursting pressures differed significantly between the two sutures in the small intestine, showing the advantage of the V-Loc closure device, which had a mean bursting pressure of 116.2 mmHg compared with 110 mmHg for the monofil suture (p = 0.003). The mean bursting pressure did not differ significantly between the two sutures in the colon and the stomach. The mean bursting pressures for the V-Loc closure device were 141.3 mmHg (stomach) and 137.2 mmHg (colon) compared with the monofil suture material bursting pressures of 133 mmHg (stomach) and 134.8 mmHg (colon). CONCLUSIONS: Because the bursting strength of the sutures created with monofil suture material differs significantly from that of the V-Loc closure device, the V-Loc suture material should be used for gastrointestinal sutures. Although the two sutures did not differ significantly in the colon or the stomach, the V-Loc closure device should be used for these as well because its advantages may overrule those of the monofil suture. No knot tying is required, and the operating time can be shorter. Especially for laparoscopic surgery, the V-Loc closure device is recommended.
BACKGROUND: Leakage is one of the major complications in gastrointestinal surgery. This preliminary study compared a new barbed absorbable thread for gastrointestinal sutures with monofil suture material in a cadaver model. METHODS: In this study, mechanical experiments were performed in 20 recently deceased individuals. Incisions were made in the small intestine, colon, and stomach, and then sutures were created with the V-Loc closure device and monofil suture material. Intestinal bursting pressure was measured by inserting a balloon and slowly filling it with air until there was a dehiscence, or wall or suture rupture. RESULTS: The bursting pressures differed significantly between the two sutures in the small intestine, showing the advantage of the V-Loc closure device, which had a mean bursting pressure of 116.2 mmHg compared with 110 mmHg for the monofil suture (p = 0.003). The mean bursting pressure did not differ significantly between the two sutures in the colon and the stomach. The mean bursting pressures for the V-Loc closure device were 141.3 mmHg (stomach) and 137.2 mmHg (colon) compared with the monofil suture material bursting pressures of 133 mmHg (stomach) and 134.8 mmHg (colon). CONCLUSIONS: Because the bursting strength of the sutures created with monofil suture material differs significantly from that of the V-Loc closure device, the V-Loc suture material should be used for gastrointestinal sutures. Although the two sutures did not differ significantly in the colon or the stomach, the V-Loc closure device should be used for these as well because its advantages may overrule those of the monofil suture. No knot tying is required, and the operating time can be shorter. Especially for laparoscopic surgery, the V-Loc closure device is recommended.
Authors: Sebastian V Demyttenaere; Peter Nau; Matthew Henn; Catherine Beck; Jeffrey Zaruby; Michael Primavera; David Kirsch; Jeffrey Miller; James J Liu; Andrew Bellizzi; W Scott Melvin Journal: Surg Innov Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 2.058
Authors: James Fleshman; Daniel J Sargent; Erin Green; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; Heidi Nelson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: S Carandina; M Tabbara; M Bossi; A Valenti; C Polliand; L Genser; Christophe Barrat Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.452