A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing absorbable barbed sutures versus conventional absorbable sutures for dermal closure in open surgical procedures
Barbed sutures were developed to reduce operative time and improve security of wound closure. The authors compare absorbable barbed sutures (V-Loc, Covidien, Mansfield, Massachusetts) with conventional (smooth) absorbable sutures for soft tissue approximation. A prospective multicenter randomized st...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Aesthetic surgery journal 2014-02, Vol.34 (2), p.272-283 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 283 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 272 |
| container_title | Aesthetic surgery journal |
| container_volume | 34 |
| creator | Rubin, J Peter Hunstad, Joseph P Polynice, Alain Gusenoff, Jeffrey A Schoeller, Thomas Dunn, Raymond Walgenbach, Klaus J Hansen, Juliana E |
| description | Barbed sutures were developed to reduce operative time and improve security of wound closure.
The authors compare absorbable barbed sutures (V-Loc, Covidien, Mansfield, Massachusetts) with conventional (smooth) absorbable sutures for soft tissue approximation.
A prospective multicenter randomized study comparing barbed sutures with smooth sutures was undertaken between August 13, 2009, and January 31, 2010, in 241 patients undergoing abdominoplasty, mastopexy, and reduction mammaplasty. Each patient received barbed sutures on 1 side of the body, with deep dermal sutures eliminated or reduced. Smooth sutures with deep dermal and subcuticular closure were used on the other side as a control. The primary endpoint was dermal closure time. Safety was assessed through adverse event reporting through a 12-week follow-up.
A total of 229 patients were ultimately treated (115 with slow-absorbing polymer and 114 with rapid-absorbing polymer). Mean dermal closure time was significantly quicker with the barbed suture compared with the smooth suture (12.0 vs 19.2 minutes; P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/1090820x13519264 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1499122398</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1499122398</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-2abb84fdc8008d7b331cb2786ec3b7451401f466e30701b6ff027de4b336ad5b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkUlrHDEQhUWIyXi75xR0zKWd0jK9HI2JFzDkYsPcGi3Vg4K6NSl1myR_x3_UGjwTclJR73uvEI-xzwKuhGiabwI6aCX8FmotOlnrD-xUrGVTKQWbj2UuclX0zYqd5fwTADpV609sJbWWQkN7yl6v-bjEOTicZiROZvJpDH_Rc5emmVKMZZwpmFgW485QmLbc2JzIGhuRW0O2EHmZF8LMX5DykvfelxIY0lR8_9FHbEjEPdK4T40plx0PE087nApC2-CKsKPk0O_xC3YymJjx8vCes-fb708399Xjj7uHm-vHyqkO5koaa1s9eNcCtL6xSglnZdPW6JRt9Lp8WAy6rlFBA8LWwwCy8agLWBu_tuqcfX3PLad_LZjnfgzZYYxmwrTkXuiuE1Kqri0ovKOOUs6EQ7-jMBr60wvo99X0h2o2x2qK5cshfbEj-n-GYxfqDcI9jpI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1499122398</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing absorbable barbed sutures versus conventional absorbable sutures for dermal closure in open surgical procedures</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Rubin, J Peter ; Hunstad, Joseph P ; Polynice, Alain ; Gusenoff, Jeffrey A ; Schoeller, Thomas ; Dunn, Raymond ; Walgenbach, Klaus J ; Hansen, Juliana E</creator><creatorcontrib>Rubin, J Peter ; Hunstad, Joseph P ; Polynice, Alain ; Gusenoff, Jeffrey A ; Schoeller, Thomas ; Dunn, Raymond ; Walgenbach, Klaus J ; Hansen, Juliana E</creatorcontrib><description>Barbed sutures were developed to reduce operative time and improve security of wound closure.
The authors compare absorbable barbed sutures (V-Loc, Covidien, Mansfield, Massachusetts) with conventional (smooth) absorbable sutures for soft tissue approximation.
A prospective multicenter randomized study comparing barbed sutures with smooth sutures was undertaken between August 13, 2009, and January 31, 2010, in 241 patients undergoing abdominoplasty, mastopexy, and reduction mammaplasty. Each patient received barbed sutures on 1 side of the body, with deep dermal sutures eliminated or reduced. Smooth sutures with deep dermal and subcuticular closure were used on the other side as a control. The primary endpoint was dermal closure time. Safety was assessed through adverse event reporting through a 12-week follow-up.
A total of 229 patients were ultimately treated (115 with slow-absorbing polymer and 114 with rapid-absorbing polymer). Mean dermal closure time was significantly quicker with the barbed suture compared with the smooth suture (12.0 vs 19.2 minutes; P<.001), primarily due to the need for fewer deep dermal sutures. The rapid-absorbing barbed suture showed a complication profile equivalent to the smooth suture, while the slow-absorbing barbed suture had a higher incidence of minor suture extrusion.
Barbed sutures enabled faster dermal closure quicker than smooth sutures, with a comparable complication profile.
1.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1090-820X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-330X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1090820x13519264</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24421408</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Abdominoplasty ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Drainage ; Equipment Design ; Esthetics ; Humans ; Mammaplasty ; Middle Aged ; Operative Time ; Postoperative Complications ; Prospective Studies ; Sutures ; Wound Closure Techniques - instrumentation ; Wound Healing ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Aesthetic surgery journal, 2014-02, Vol.34 (2), p.272-283</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-2abb84fdc8008d7b331cb2786ec3b7451401f466e30701b6ff027de4b336ad5b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-2abb84fdc8008d7b331cb2786ec3b7451401f466e30701b6ff027de4b336ad5b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24421408$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rubin, J Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hunstad, Joseph P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Polynice, Alain</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gusenoff, Jeffrey A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schoeller, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunn, Raymond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walgenbach, Klaus J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hansen, Juliana E</creatorcontrib><title>A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing absorbable barbed sutures versus conventional absorbable sutures for dermal closure in open surgical procedures</title><title>Aesthetic surgery journal</title><addtitle>Aesthet Surg J</addtitle><description>Barbed sutures were developed to reduce operative time and improve security of wound closure.
The authors compare absorbable barbed sutures (V-Loc, Covidien, Mansfield, Massachusetts) with conventional (smooth) absorbable sutures for soft tissue approximation.
A prospective multicenter randomized study comparing barbed sutures with smooth sutures was undertaken between August 13, 2009, and January 31, 2010, in 241 patients undergoing abdominoplasty, mastopexy, and reduction mammaplasty. Each patient received barbed sutures on 1 side of the body, with deep dermal sutures eliminated or reduced. Smooth sutures with deep dermal and subcuticular closure were used on the other side as a control. The primary endpoint was dermal closure time. Safety was assessed through adverse event reporting through a 12-week follow-up.
A total of 229 patients were ultimately treated (115 with slow-absorbing polymer and 114 with rapid-absorbing polymer). Mean dermal closure time was significantly quicker with the barbed suture compared with the smooth suture (12.0 vs 19.2 minutes; P<.001), primarily due to the need for fewer deep dermal sutures. The rapid-absorbing barbed suture showed a complication profile equivalent to the smooth suture, while the slow-absorbing barbed suture had a higher incidence of minor suture extrusion.
Barbed sutures enabled faster dermal closure quicker than smooth sutures, with a comparable complication profile.
1.</description><subject>Abdominoplasty</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Drainage</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Esthetics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mammaplasty</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Operative Time</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Sutures</subject><subject>Wound Closure Techniques - instrumentation</subject><subject>Wound Healing</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1090-820X</issn><issn>1527-330X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkUlrHDEQhUWIyXi75xR0zKWd0jK9HI2JFzDkYsPcGi3Vg4K6NSl1myR_x3_UGjwTclJR73uvEI-xzwKuhGiabwI6aCX8FmotOlnrD-xUrGVTKQWbj2UuclX0zYqd5fwTADpV609sJbWWQkN7yl6v-bjEOTicZiROZvJpDH_Rc5emmVKMZZwpmFgW485QmLbc2JzIGhuRW0O2EHmZF8LMX5DykvfelxIY0lR8_9FHbEjEPdK4T40plx0PE087nApC2-CKsKPk0O_xC3YymJjx8vCes-fb708399Xjj7uHm-vHyqkO5koaa1s9eNcCtL6xSglnZdPW6JRt9Lp8WAy6rlFBA8LWwwCy8agLWBu_tuqcfX3PLad_LZjnfgzZYYxmwrTkXuiuE1Kqri0ovKOOUs6EQ7-jMBr60wvo99X0h2o2x2qK5cshfbEj-n-GYxfqDcI9jpI</recordid><startdate>20140201</startdate><enddate>20140201</enddate><creator>Rubin, J Peter</creator><creator>Hunstad, Joseph P</creator><creator>Polynice, Alain</creator><creator>Gusenoff, Jeffrey A</creator><creator>Schoeller, Thomas</creator><creator>Dunn, Raymond</creator><creator>Walgenbach, Klaus J</creator><creator>Hansen, Juliana E</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140201</creationdate><title>A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing absorbable barbed sutures versus conventional absorbable sutures for dermal closure in open surgical procedures</title><author>Rubin, J Peter ; Hunstad, Joseph P ; Polynice, Alain ; Gusenoff, Jeffrey A ; Schoeller, Thomas ; Dunn, Raymond ; Walgenbach, Klaus J ; Hansen, Juliana E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-2abb84fdc8008d7b331cb2786ec3b7451401f466e30701b6ff027de4b336ad5b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Abdominoplasty</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Drainage</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Esthetics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mammaplasty</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Operative Time</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Sutures</topic><topic>Wound Closure Techniques - instrumentation</topic><topic>Wound Healing</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rubin, J Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hunstad, Joseph P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Polynice, Alain</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gusenoff, Jeffrey A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schoeller, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunn, Raymond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walgenbach, Klaus J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hansen, Juliana E</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Aesthetic surgery journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rubin, J Peter</au><au>Hunstad, Joseph P</au><au>Polynice, Alain</au><au>Gusenoff, Jeffrey A</au><au>Schoeller, Thomas</au><au>Dunn, Raymond</au><au>Walgenbach, Klaus J</au><au>Hansen, Juliana E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing absorbable barbed sutures versus conventional absorbable sutures for dermal closure in open surgical procedures</atitle><jtitle>Aesthetic surgery journal</jtitle><addtitle>Aesthet Surg J</addtitle><date>2014-02-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>272</spage><epage>283</epage><pages>272-283</pages><issn>1090-820X</issn><eissn>1527-330X</eissn><abstract>Barbed sutures were developed to reduce operative time and improve security of wound closure.
The authors compare absorbable barbed sutures (V-Loc, Covidien, Mansfield, Massachusetts) with conventional (smooth) absorbable sutures for soft tissue approximation.
A prospective multicenter randomized study comparing barbed sutures with smooth sutures was undertaken between August 13, 2009, and January 31, 2010, in 241 patients undergoing abdominoplasty, mastopexy, and reduction mammaplasty. Each patient received barbed sutures on 1 side of the body, with deep dermal sutures eliminated or reduced. Smooth sutures with deep dermal and subcuticular closure were used on the other side as a control. The primary endpoint was dermal closure time. Safety was assessed through adverse event reporting through a 12-week follow-up.
A total of 229 patients were ultimately treated (115 with slow-absorbing polymer and 114 with rapid-absorbing polymer). Mean dermal closure time was significantly quicker with the barbed suture compared with the smooth suture (12.0 vs 19.2 minutes; P<.001), primarily due to the need for fewer deep dermal sutures. The rapid-absorbing barbed suture showed a complication profile equivalent to the smooth suture, while the slow-absorbing barbed suture had a higher incidence of minor suture extrusion.
Barbed sutures enabled faster dermal closure quicker than smooth sutures, with a comparable complication profile.
1.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>24421408</pmid><doi>10.1177/1090820x13519264</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1090-820X |
| ispartof | Aesthetic surgery journal, 2014-02, Vol.34 (2), p.272-283 |
| issn | 1090-820X 1527-330X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1499122398 |
| source | MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Abdominoplasty Adolescent Adult Aged Drainage Equipment Design Esthetics Humans Mammaplasty Middle Aged Operative Time Postoperative Complications Prospective Studies Sutures Wound Closure Techniques - instrumentation Wound Healing Young Adult |
| title | A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing absorbable barbed sutures versus conventional absorbable sutures for dermal closure in open surgical procedures |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T19%3A30%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20multicenter%20randomized%20controlled%20trial%20comparing%20absorbable%20barbed%20sutures%20versus%20conventional%20absorbable%20sutures%20for%20dermal%20closure%20in%20open%20surgical%20procedures&rft.jtitle=Aesthetic%20surgery%20journal&rft.au=Rubin,%20J%20Peter&rft.date=2014-02-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=272&rft.epage=283&rft.pages=272-283&rft.issn=1090-820X&rft.eissn=1527-330X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1090820x13519264&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1499122398%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1499122398&rft_id=info:pmid/24421408&rfr_iscdi=true |