ArticleScientific reports2021
Mechanical strength and hydrostatic testing of VIVO adhesive in sutureless microsurgical anastomoses: an ex vivo study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biohybrid microvascular interponates with integrated elastin-like recombinamers - validation of stability and biomimetic elasticity in human vessels.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Tensile strength of adhesives in peripheral nerve anastomoses: an in vitro biomechanical evaluation of four different neurorrhaphies.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Hemostatic Effect of an Innovative Tissue Adhesive during Extraction Therapy under Rivaroxaban in a Rodent Model.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Nanoimprint Mold Consisting of an Adhesive Lap Joint between a Nanopatterned Metal Sleeve and a Carbon Composite Roll.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Long-Term Degradation Assessment of a Polyurethane-Based Surgical Adhesive-Assessment and Critical Consideration of Preclinical In Vitro and In Vivo Testing.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- NovelBioMed research international · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional anastomoses with interrupted sutures are challenging and inevitably associated with trauma to the vessel walls. The goal of this study was to evaluate a novel alternative adhesive-based suture-free anastomosis technique that uses an intraluminal stent. Overall, 120 porcine coronary vessels were analyzed in an ex vivo model and were examined for their mechanical (n = 20 per cohort) and hydrostatic strength (n = 20 per cohort). Anastomoses were made using the novel VIVO adhesive with an additional intraluminal nitinol stent and was compared to interrupted suture anastomosis and to native vessels. Sutureless anastomoses withstood pressures 299 ± 4.47 [mmHg] comparable to native vessels. They were performed significantly faster 553.8 ± 82.44 [sec] (p ≤ 0.001) and withstood significantly higher pressures (p ≤ 0.001) than sutured anastomoses. We demonstrate that the adhesive-based anastomosis can also resist unphysiologically high longitudinal tensile forces with a mean of 1.33 [N]. Within the limitations of an in vitro study adhesive-based suture-free anastomosis technique has the biomechanical potential to offer a seamless alternative to sutured anastomosis because of its stability, and faster handling. In vivo animal studies are needed to validate outcomes and confirm safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.