Techniques in coloproctology · 2014
Use of self-retaining barbed suture for rectal wall closure in transanal endoscopic microsurgery.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wilhelm P, Storz P, Axt S, Falch C, Kirschniak A, Muller S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of self-retaining barbed sutures in comparison with monofilament clip-fixated sutures for rectal wall closure in transanal endoscopic microsurgery.
METHODS: Horizontal full-thickness wall defects (3.5 cm) of cattle rectal specimens were closed via transanal endoscopic microsurgery using a monofilament suture with clips at the end (Surgipro(®) 2/0; Covidien, Mansfield, MA, USA, n = 25) or a self-retaining barbed suture (V-Loc™ 180 3/0; Covidien, Mansfield, MA, USA, n = 25). The primary endpoint was the pneumatic leakage pressure of the suture line. As a secondary endpoint, suture time was evaluated.
RESULTS: The median pneumatic leakage pressure for barbed sutures was 45.5 mbar (range 17-106 mbar) and 33.5 mbar (range 19-106 mbar) for monofilament sutures (p = 0.58). A pneumatic leak at a critical pressure below 25 mbar occurred in 3 cases with barbed sutures and in 7 cases with monofilament sutures (p = 0.29). Median suturing time [19:25 min:s (range 12:00-33:30) vs. 20:41 (17:00-28:33), p = 0.23] did not differ between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Barbed sutures display the same bursting pressure as monofilament sutures and their use for rectal wall closure seems feasible.
METHODS: Horizontal full-thickness wall defects (3.5 cm) of cattle rectal specimens were closed via transanal endoscopic microsurgery using a monofilament suture with clips at the end (Surgipro(®) 2/0; Covidien, Mansfield, MA, USA, n = 25) or a self-retaining barbed suture (V-Loc™ 180 3/0; Covidien, Mansfield, MA, USA, n = 25). The primary endpoint was the pneumatic leakage pressure of the suture line. As a secondary endpoint, suture time was evaluated.
RESULTS: The median pneumatic leakage pressure for barbed sutures was 45.5 mbar (range 17-106 mbar) and 33.5 mbar (range 19-106 mbar) for monofilament sutures (p = 0.58). A pneumatic leak at a critical pressure below 25 mbar occurred in 3 cases with barbed sutures and in 7 cases with monofilament sutures (p = 0.29). Median suturing time [19:25 min:s (range 12:00-33:30) vs. 20:41 (17:00-28:33), p = 0.23] did not differ between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Barbed sutures display the same bursting pressure as monofilament sutures and their use for rectal wall closure seems feasible.