Biomechanical and adhesion comparison of linea alba prophylactic reinforcement with coated and uncoated three-dimensional T-shaped mesh in rabbits

Hernani, Bruno De Lucia; Barros, Paulo Henrique Fogaça de; Tastaldi, Luciano; Ladeira, Luiza Nascimento; Roll, Sérgio; Ferreira, Fábio Gonçalves; Garcia, Diego Paim Carvalho

doi:10.1590/s0102-865020200100000001

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The clinical nature of this study did not allow the use of biomechanical tests for such an investigation. Another failure of the present study was not being possible to compare the occurrence visceral adhesions in the abdominal wall of both groups, once different materials may induce such abnormality 18 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Evaluation of barbed suture for celiorrhaphy and subcutaneous closure in bitches with pyometra submitted to ovariohysterectomy

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the use of barbed sutures over the surgical time, the leukogram, the tissue thickness in which the sutures were employed (ultrasonography), the costs, and the possible complications in bitches with pyometra submitted to ovariohysterectomy (OH). Methods: Convectional 2.0 polyglyconate suture was used in the control group (CG n = 10) and 2.0 barbed polyglyconate suture in the barbed group (BG n = 10) to perform celiorrhaphy (simple continuous pattern) and subcutaneous closure (continuous intradermal pattern). Data were assessed using paired (leukogram between 24 and 48 h within the same group) and unpaired (leukogram, surgical time, tissue thickness, and costs) Student's t-test. The Fisher exact test was used to assess the occurrence of seroma between groups (p < 0.05). Results are shown as mean ± standard error of mean. Results: The time spent to perform the celiorrhaphy (195.30 ± 17.37 s vs. 204 ± 16.00 s), subcutaneous closure (174.0 ± 15.86 s vs. 198.0 ± 15.62 s), and the total surgical time (24.30 ± 1.44 min vs. 23.00 ± 1.30 min) did not differ between BG and CG, respectively (p > 0.05). Leukogram at 48 h post-surgery did not differ between groups (p = 0.20). No differences were observed in the subcutaneous and the abdominal wall thickness (cm) assessed by ultrasonography at 48 h in BG (0.31 ± 0.04, 0.80 ± 0.05) and CG (0.34 ± 0.03, 0.72 ± 0.06), respectively. Similarly, 15 days post-surgery the same structures did not differ between BG (0.26 ± 0.02, 0.74 ± 0.08) and CG (0.26 ± 0.03, 0.64 ± 0.05) (p > 0.05). In one bitch from each group, a mild seroma was observed on one side of the surgical wound 48 h after surgery (p = 1.00). The procedures in which barbed sutures were used had an average additional cost of R$ 200.00 ± 11.66 (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Barbed suture has proven to be efficient and safe for abdominal and subcutaneous closure. However, considering its current high cost in addition that the surgical time of bitches with pyometra undergone OH was not reduced, no advantages were observed with the use of barbed sutures for this type of surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%