PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 4026661

Skin wound approximation with new absorbable suture material.

Abstract

A new rapid strength loss catgut suture material can be used for skin closures in wounds of the face and body. Seventy-six comparisons were made under controlled conditions between the new material and one formerly recommended. The new material was used in 588 other wounds as well. It is concluded that the new material is superior to the other in several important ways.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R C Webster, E G McCollough, P R Giandello, R C Smith. 1985. Skin wound approximation with new absorbable suture material.. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1985.00800100065008

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Tying a loop-to-strand suture: is it safe?

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the integrity of the loop-to-strand knot when tied with square and nonidentical sliding knots. STUDY DESIGN: The synthetic absorbable monofilament suture poliglecaprone 25 in 0 and 2-0 suture gauges was used in this experiment. For each suture gauge, 3 groups of knots were tested: (1) single strand-to-single strand, flat square knot, (2) loop-to-single strand, flat square knot, and (3) loop-to-single strand, nonidentical sliding knot. All knots were tied with 6 throws. The proportion of knots becoming untied was compared among the 3 groups for each suture gauge. Ultimate load required to untie or break knots within each group was also evaluated. RESULTS: The loop-to-strand knot performed well in both suture gauges tested as long as it was tied with a flat square knot. The loop-to-strand knot tied with a nonidentical sliding knot had an unacceptably high failure rate. CONCLUSION: The loop-to-strand termination of a continuous suture may be acceptable when tied with a 6-throw flat square knot but not acceptable if tied with sliding knots.

Catgut↗

Randomized comparison of chromic versus fast-absorbing polyglactin 910 for postpartum perineal repair.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate the healing characteristics of chromic versus fast-absorbing polyglactin 910. METHODS: Laboring women were randomly assigned to chromic or fast-absorbing polyglactin for perineal repairs. Subjects were evaluated at 24-48 hours, 10-14 days, and 6-8 weeks to assess perineal and uterine pain, analgesic use, presence of residual suture, and wound dehiscence. RESULTS: Between April 2002 and January 2003, 1,361 subjects were randomly assigned. Two thirds of women in each group (459 fast-absorbing polyglactin and 449 chromic) required sutures for perineal repairs. Women were evaluated according to randomization assignment. Overall, 794 (87%) of subjects received the appropriate allocated suture to repair a perineal laceration (399 of 459, 86.9% fast-absorbing polyglactin 910; 395 of 449, 88% chromic catgut). At 24-48 hours, there was a statistically significant reduction in uterine cramping pain (25% versus 34%; P =.006) in subjects randomly assigned to fast-absorbing polyglactin. At 10-14 days, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. At 6-8 weeks there was, again, a statistically significant reduction in uterine cramping pain (1% versus 4%; P =.017) and a statistically significant decrease in analgesic use (5% versus 10%; P =.048) in subjects randomly assigned to fast-absorbing polyglactin. Finally, at 6-8 weeks postpartum there was no difference in residual suture (2 of 175 versus 2 of 134; P =.802) or wound breakdowns (4 of 175 versus 3 of 134; P =.959) for fast-absorbing polyglactin 910 and chromic catgut, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that fast-absorbing polyglactin 910 and chromic elicit similar postpartum perineal discomfort. In contrast to previous studies evaluating standard polyglactin, our trial demonstrated that fast-absorbing polyglactin rarely requires late removal and has a similar wound breakdown profile as compared with chromic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I

Catgut↗