Journals / Haydarpaşa Numune Medical Journal / 2018 / Cilt: 58 - Sayı: 2

Tissue Response to Suture Materials (4 Different Sutures) Used in Fascia Repair in Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Pages
67–73
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The patients who underwent surgery with other suture materials did not exhibit soft tissue reaction.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the tissue inflammatory response to suture materials used for fascia repair in single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: The medical records of 65 patients who underwent single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in general surgery clinics at state hospitals between December 2013 and January 2015 were retrospectively analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The patients who underwent surgery with other suture materials did not exhibit soft tissue reaction.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the tissue inflammatory response to suture materials used for fascia repair in single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: The medical records of 65 patients who underwent single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in general surgery clinics at state hospitals between December 2013 and January 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Tissue reaction to the suture materials used for repairing a 2-cm fascia incision in single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was evaluated. Tissue reaction to the following suture materials used for repairing the fascia defect was analyzed: non-absorbable braided polyester, nonabsorbable monofilament polypropylene, absorbable polyfilament polyglactin, and absorbable monofilament poldioxanone. Results: Non-absorbable braided polyester was used in 14 patients, non-absorbable monofilament polypropylene in 25 patients, absorbable polyfilament polyglactin in 10 patients, and absorbable monofilament poldioxanone in 16 patients. Patients were followed up for at least 6 months. Fourteen patients who had a foreign body reaction could not be treated by antibiotherapy and therefore underwent surgery to excise the sutures responsible for inducing the reaction. Discussion and Conclusion: Non-absorbable braided polyester caused tissue reaction, which could not be treated by antibiotherapy and medical treatment. All the patients who underwent surgery with this suture material had to be reoperated to excise the suture material. The patients who underwent surgery with other suture materials did not exhibit soft tissue reaction.

🔖

Cite This Article

FERAHMAN, S., DÖNMEZ, T., SUNAMAK, O., SARAÇOĞLU, S., FERAHMAN, D. (2018). Tissue Response to Suture Materials (4 Different Sutures) Used in Fascia Repair in Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Haydarpaşa Numune Medical Journal, Cilt: 58 - Sayı: 2, 67–73. https://ajindex.com/articles/198196

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Köşlü A. Yara iyileşmesinde tarihsel gelişmeler. In: Erdem C, Çelebi CR. Tüm Yönleriyle Yara İyileşmesi. Ankara: Ayrıntı Matbaacılık; 1996. p. 1–7
  2. Erol E, Özdinc Ö, Avcıoglu Kalebek N. Properties of Suture Materials. Electronic Journal of Textile Technologies 2014;8:35– 48
  3. Esenyel CZ, Demirhan M, Kilicoglu O, Adanir O, Bilgic B, Guzel O, et al. Evaluation of soft tissue reactions to three nonabsorbable suture materials in a rabbit model. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 2009;43:366–72. [CrossRef ] 4. Çelik F, Kaya MA. Scientific criterias for surgical suture and needle selection. Turkish Journal of Surgery 2006;22:153–7
  4. Bhargava D, Anantanarayanan P, Prakash G, Dare BJ, Deshpande A. Initial inflammatory response of skeletal muscle to commonly used suture materials: an animal model study to evaluate muscle healing after surgical repair - histopathological perspective. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013;18:e491–6
  5. Gemci R, Ersoy MS. Investigation Of The Knot Strength Of Suture Waited In Different Solutions. Tekstil Teknolojileri Elektronik Dergisi 2010;4:25–34
  6. Greenwald D, Shumway S, Albear P, Gottlieb L. Mechanical comparison of 10 suture materials before and after in vivo incubation. J Surg Res 1994;56:372–7. [CrossRef ] 8. Tan RH, Bell RJ, Dowling BA, Dart AJ. Suture materials: composition and applications in veternary wound repair. Aust Vet J 2003;81:140–5. [CrossRef ] 9. Smeak D. Selection and use of currently available suture materials. In: Current techniques in small animal surgery. Lea and Febiger: Philadelphia; 1990. p. 34–9
  7. Niles J, Williams J. Suture materials and patterns. In Practice 1999;21:308–22. [CrossRef ] 11. Moy RL, Lee A, Zalka A. Commonly used suture materials in skin surgery. Am Fam Physician 1991;44:2123–8
  8. Sheikh Z, Brooks PJ, Barzilay O, Fine N, Glogauer M. Macrophages, Foreign Body Giant Cells and Their Response to Implantable Biomaterials. Materials (Basel) 2015;8:5671–5701
  9. Bakkum EA, Dalmeijer RA, Verdel MJ, Hermans J, van Blitterswijk CA, Trimbos JB. Quantitative analysis of the inflammatory reaction surrounding sutures commonly used in operative procedures and the relation to postsurgical adhesion formation. Biomaterials 1995;16:1283–9. [CrossRef ] 14. Andrade MG, Weissman R, Reis SR. Tissue reaction and surface morphology of absorbable sutures after in vivo exposure. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2006;17:949–61. [CrossRef ] 15. Kosan M, Gonulalan U, Ozturk B, Kulacoglu S, Erguder I, Akdem