OBJECTIVE: To compare mechanical strength and rheology of existing tissue adhesives in a clinically relevant test setup with regard to colorectal anastomosis. BACKGROUND: Little is known on the mechanical strength of tissue adhesives directly after application. Furthermore, rheological profiling may be important in understanding mechanical performance and explaining differences between adhesives. This study provides new data on the mechanical strength and rheology of a comprehensive list of tissue adhesives with regard to colorectal adhesiveness. METHODS: Twelve surgical tissue adhesives were included: 4 cyanoacrylate adhesives (CA), 2 fibrin glues (FG), 3 polyethylene glycol (PEG) adhesives, and 3 albumin-based (AB) adhesives. Tubular rat colonic segments were glued together. Tensile (T), shear (S), and peel (P) strength were measured. Shear storage (G') and shear loss (G″) moduli were also evaluated. RESULTS: CA adhesives were stronger than AB (T: P = 0.017; S: P = 0.064; P: P < 0.001), which, in turn, were stronger than PEG (T: P < 0.001; S: P < 0.001; P: P = 0.018). PEG were stronger than FG for shear (P = 0.013) and comparable for tensile and peel strength (P > 0.05). Within-group variation was smallest for CA. Mechanical strength correlated strongly between performed tests. Rheological properties (G' and G″) correlated strongly with mechanical strength for all adhesives combined. CONCLUSIONS: CA adhesives are the strongest and most homogenous group in terms of mechanical strength. Hydrogels (FG, AB) are heterogeneous, with lower mechanical strength than CA. FG are mechanically the weakest adhesives. Rheological profiles correlate to mechanical strength and may be useful for predicting mechanical performance.
OBJECTIVE: To compare mechanical strength and rheology of existing tissue adhesives in a clinically relevant test setup with regard to colorectal anastomosis. BACKGROUND: Little is known on the mechanical strength of tissue adhesives directly after application. Furthermore, rheological profiling may be important in understanding mechanical performance and explaining differences between adhesives. This study provides new data on the mechanical strength and rheology of a comprehensive list of tissue adhesives with regard to colorectal adhesiveness. METHODS: Twelve surgical tissue adhesives were included: 4 cyanoacrylate adhesives (CA), 2 fibrin glues (FG), 3 polyethylene glycol (PEG) adhesives, and 3 albumin-based (AB) adhesives. Tubular rat colonic segments were glued together. Tensile (T), shear (S), and peel (P) strength were measured. Shear storage (G') and shear loss (G″) moduli were also evaluated. RESULTS: CA adhesives were stronger than AB (T: P = 0.017; S: P = 0.064; P: P < 0.001), which, in turn, were stronger than PEG (T: P < 0.001; S: P < 0.001; P: P = 0.018). PEG were stronger than FG for shear (P = 0.013) and comparable for tensile and peel strength (P > 0.05). Within-group variation was smallest for CA. Mechanical strength correlated strongly between performed tests. Rheological properties (G' and G″) correlated strongly with mechanical strength for all adhesives combined. CONCLUSIONS: CA adhesives are the strongest and most homogenous group in terms of mechanical strength. Hydrogels (FG, AB) are heterogeneous, with lower mechanical strength than CA. FG are mechanically the weakest adhesives. Rheological profiles correlate to mechanical strength and may be useful for predicting mechanical performance.
Authors: Jingjie Hu; Hassan Albadawi; Brian W Chong; Amy R Deipolyi; Rahul A Sheth; Ali Khademhosseini; Rahmi Oklu Journal: Adv Mater Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 30.849
Authors: Zhouqiao Wu; Konstantinos A Vakalopoulos; Geesien S A Boersema; Leonard F Kroese; King H Lam; Paul H van der Horst; Irene M Mulder; Yvonne M Bastiaansen-Jenniskens; Gert-Jan Kleinrensink; Johannes Jeekel; Johan F Lange Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: J Li; A D Celiz; J Yang; Q Yang; I Wamala; W Whyte; B R Seo; N V Vasilyev; J J Vlassak; Z Suo; D J Mooney Journal: Science Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: John L Daristotle; Shadden T Zaki; Lung W Lau; Leopoldo Torres; Aristotelis Zografos; Priya Srinivasan; Omar B Ayyub; Anthony D Sandler; Peter Kofinas Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Jachym Rosendorf; Marketa Klicova; Lenka Cervenkova; Richard Palek; Jana Horakova; Andrea Klapstova; Petr Hosek; Vladimira Moulisova; Lukas Bednar; Vaclav Tegl; Ondrej Brzon; Zbynek Tonar; Vladislav Treska; David Lukas; Vaclav Liska Journal: In Vivo Date: 2021 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Marius Heitzer; Julia Brockhaus; Kristian Kniha; Felix Merkord; Florian Peters; Frank Hölzle; Evgeny Goloborodko; Ali Modabber Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 4.379