Comparison of gross and histologic tissue responses of skin incisions closed by use of absorbable subcuticular staples, cutaneous metal staples, and polyglactin 910 suture in pigs

American Journal of Veterinary Research

Volumn 66, Issue 11, 2005, Pages 1975-1984

  Fick, Jennifer L ^a,b   Novo, Roberto E ^a   Kirchhof, Nicole ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABSORBABLE SUTURE; METAL; POLYGLACTIN;

ACCURACY; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; AUTOPSY; BREEDING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEATH; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; INFLAMMATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; NONHUMAN; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZATION; SCORING SYSTEM; SKIN INCISION; SURGICAL STAPLING; SUTURING METHOD; SWINE DISEASE; TISSUE REACTION; WOUND CLOSURE; WOUND HEALING;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; HISTOCYTOCHEMISTRY; MALE; POLYGLACTIN 910; RANDOM ALLOCATION; SKIN; SUTURES; SWINE; WOUND HEALING;

ANIMALIA; SUS SCROFA;

EID: 30744442524     PISSN: 00029645     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.2005.66.1975     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Johnson A, Rodeheaver GT, Durand LS, et al. Automatic disposable stapling devices for wound closure. Ann Emerg Med 1981;10:631-635.
2. Boothe HW. Selecting suture materials for small animal surgery. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1998;20:155-163.
3. Smeak DD. Buried continuous intradermal suture closure. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1992;14:907-918.
4. Kirpensteijn J, Maarschalkerweerd RJ, Koeman JP, et al. Comparison of two suture materials for intradermal skin closure in dogs. Vet Q 1997;19:20-22.
5. Skaria AM. The buried running dermal subcutaneous suture technique with a tacking knot. Dermatol Surg 2002;28:739-741.
6. Moy RL, Waldman B, Hein DW. A review of sutures and suturing techniques. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1992;18:785-795.
7. Ranaboldo CJ, Rowe-Jones DC. Closure of laparotomy wounds: skin staples versus sutures. Br J Surg 1992;79:1172-1173.
8. Roth JH, Windle BH. Staple versus suture closure of skin incisions in a pig model. Can J Surg 1988;31:19-20.
9. Alderdice F, McKenna D, Dornan J. Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;CD003577.
10. Stockley I, Elson RA. Skin closure using staples and nylon sutures: a comparison of results. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1987; 69:76-78.
11. INSORB staple [product label]. Plymouth, Minn: Incisive Surgical Inc, 2005.
12. Sewell WR, Wiland J, Craver BN. A new method of comparing sutures of ovine catgut with sutures of bovine catgut in three species. Surg Gynec Obstet 1955;100:483-494.
13. Molea G, Schonauer F, Bifulco G, et al. Comparative study on biocompatibility and absorption times of three absorbable monofilament suture materials (Polydioxanone, Poliglecaprone 25, Glycomer 631). Br J Plast Surg 2000;53:137-141.
14. Bourne RB, Bitar H, Andreae PR, et al. In-vivo comparison of four absorbable sutures: vicryl, dexon plus, maxon, and PDS. Can J Surg 1988;31:43-45.
15. Bellenger CR. Sutures: part 1. The purpose of sutures and available suture materials. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1982;4:507-515.
16. Stashak TS, Yturraspe DJ. Considerations for selection of suture materials. Vet Surg 1978;7:48-55.
17. Craig PH, Williams JA, Davis KW, et al. A biologic comparison of polyglactin 910 and polyglycolic acid synthetic absorbable sutures. Surg Gynec Obstet 1975;141:1-10.
18. Sanz LE, Patterson JA, Kamath R, et al. Comparison of maxon suture with vicryl, chromic catgut, and PDS sutures in fascial closure in rats. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:418-422.
19. Wood DS, Collins JE, Walshaw R. Tissue reaction to non-absorbable suture materials in the canine linea alba: a histological evaluation. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1982;20:39-44.
20. Mehta PH, Dunn KA, Bradfield JF, et al. Contaminated wounds: infection rates with subcutaneous sutures. Ann Emerg Med 1996;27:43-48.
21. Kirpensteijn J, Fingland RB, Boyer JE, et al. Comparison of stainless steel fascial staples and polyproplylene suture material for closure of the linea alba in dogs. Vet Surg 1993;22:464-472.
22. Setzen G, Williams EF III. Tissue response to suture materials implanted subcutaneously in a rabbit model. Plast Reconst Surg 1997;100:1788-1795.
23. Hurry CA, Brazik DC, Law JM, et al. Evaluation of the tissue reactions in the skin and body wall of koi (Cyprinus carpio) to five suture materials. Vet Rec 2002;151:324-328.
24. Austin PE, Dunn KA, Eily-Cofield K, et al. Subcuticular sutures and the rate of inflammation in noncontaminated wounds. Ann Emerg Med 1995;25:328-330.
25. Johnston DE. Wound healing in skin. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1990;20:1-25.
26. Chassin JL, Rifkind KM, Turner JW. Errors and pitfalls in stapling gastrointestinal tract anastomosis. Surg Clin North Am 1984;64:441-459.
27. Stillman RM, Marino CA, Seligman SJ. Skin staples in potentially contaminated wounds. Arch Surg 1984;119:821-822.