Buried absorbable polyglactin 910 sutures do not result in stronger wounds in porcine full thickness skin incisions

Katy L. Townsend, William Lear, Bria L. Robertson, Jamie J. Kruzic
2016 Journal of The Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials  
Strength Buried suture Pig Polyglactin 910 a b s t r a c t Objective: To test the hypothesis that the mechanical strength of wounds closed with a combination of buried dermal absorbable sutures and superficial nonabsorbable nylon sutures will be higher than wounds closed with only superficial nonabsorbable nylon sutures. Methods: Four Yucatan pigs were anesthetized and each received four 4.5 cm full thickness incisions on their dorsal surfaces, placed 8 cm apart. Half of all incisions were
more » ... mly allocated and repaired with 3-0 polyglactin 910 (Vicryl ™ ) buried dermal absorbable sutures and superficial 3-0 nylon sutures, using a simple interrupted pattern. The other half received only 3-0 nylon sutures. Two pigs were humanely euthanized at day 10, with specimen harvest for mechanical testing; the other two pigs had superficial nylon sutures removed at day 10, as per current clinical practice, and were humanely euthanized at day 42, with specimen harvest for mechanical testing. Tensile loads were applied perpendicularly to the wounds with a displacement rate of 40 mm per minute. Results: Wounds at day 42 were 49 times stronger than wounds at day 10 (po0.0001). There was no difference in average wound strength at either day 10 or day 42 between wounds with and without buried dermal absorbable sutures. Significance: Buried dermal absorbable sutures failed to provide additional wound support at either 10 or 42 days. This result may have immediate implications for clinicians who perform cutaneous surgery and keep superficial sutures in for at least 10 days. Future research will be directed to shorter time studies, other buried dermal absorbable suture materials, and alternatives to buried dermal absorbable sutures. (J.J. Kruzic). j o u r n a l o f t h e m e c h a n i c a l b e h a v i o r o f b i o m e d i c a l m a t e r i a l s 6 3 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 3 8 6 -3 8 9
doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.06.033 pmid:27454524 fatcat:bc7vp4t3mffu3d6d4e6lqpdp2e