ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Individualized Wound Closure-Mechanical Properties of Suture Materials.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the effects of silk and polyethylene terephthalate sutures on postoperative complications in impacted lower third molar surgery.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2023Trial
- Article
- Short-Term Hydrolytic Degradation of Mechanical Properties of Absorbable Surgical Sutures: A Comparative Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Investigation of Absorbable and Non-Absorbable Multifilament Suture Materials in Terms of Strength Changes Using Chlorhexidine Mouthwash and Thermal Cycling: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Quick and safe: why a k-wire-extension-block-fixation of a bony mallet finger is the favoured treatment.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Special Issue "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in Personalized Medicine".Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wound closure is a key element of any procedure, especially aesthetic and reconstructive plastic surgery. Therefore, over the last decades, several devices have been developed in order to assist surgeons in achieving better results while saving valuable time. In this work, we give a concise review of the literature and present a biomechanical study of different suturing materials under mechanical load mimicking handling in the operating theatre. Nine different suture products, all of the same USP size (4-0), were subjected to a standardized crushing load by means of a needle holder. All materials were subjected to 0, 1, 3 and 5 crushing load cycles, respectively. The linear tensile strength was measured by means of a universal testing device. Attenuation of tensile strength was evaluated between materials and between crush cycles. In the pooled analysis, the linear tensile strength of the suture materials deteriorated significantly with every cycle (p < 0.0001). The suture materials displayed different initial tensile strengths (in descending order: polyglecaprone, polyglactin, polydioxanone, polyamid, polypropylene). In comparison, materials performed variably in terms of resistance to crush loading. The findings were statistically significant. The reconstructive surgeon has to be flexible and tailor wound closure techniques and materials to the individual patient, procedure and tissue demands; therefore, profound knowledge of the physical properties of the suture strands used is of paramount importance. The crushing load on suture materials during surgery can be detrimental for initial and long-term wound repair strength. As well as the standard wound closure methods (sutures, staples and adhesive strips), there are promising novel devices.
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.