Academic literature on the topic 'Non-absorbable suture'

Background: There is a lot of debate about the best suture for repairing the abdominal fascia post-laparotomy. This research compared the clinical results of patients who received non-absorbable versus delayed absorbable sutures for abdominal wound closure after laparotomy. Methods: We conducted a prospective non-randomized clinical trial in the Department of General Surgery, Janaki Medical College and Teaching Hospital, Janakpur, Nepal. We included patients aged more than 18 years who underwent an elective laparotomy surgery with midline vertical incision for any indication between April 2020 till March 2022 in our department. Two study groups were formed: non-absorbable suture (polypropylene suture) and delayed absorbable suture (polydiaxanone suture). Results: The two study groups were similar with respect to indication of surgery (p value = 0.52). Bowel was opened in 81% in non-absorbable group and in 85% in delayed absorbable suture group. Mean duration of surgery was found to be significantly lower in the delayed absorbable suture group as compared to non-absorbable suture group (185±21.8 vs. 232±27.3 minutes, p value < 0.05). Post-operative complications included surgical site infection, burst abdomen, incisional hernia and sinus formation. It was observed that surgical site infection rate was significantly higher among non-absorbable suture group patients as compared to delayed absorbable suture group (25% vs. 13%, p value <0.05). Conclusions: Comparing early and late post-operative complications, there was no statistically significant difference between non-absorbable suture group and delayed absorbable suture group.

Objective: To compare the frequency of wound infection with absorbable suture and non-absorbable suture after cesarean section. Study Design: A randomized controlled trial. Place and Duration: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nisthar Hospital, Multan from August 2021 to June 2022. Methodology: A total of 826 women (413 in each group) undergoing cesarean section were included. In Group-A absorbable suture was employed while in Group-B, non-absorbable suture was used. Post-operatively, all patients were followed up weekly and the final assessment of wound infection was done after 15 days. Results: In a total of 826 cases, mean age was 26.47±3.42 years. Mean body mass index was 25.62±1.87 kg/m2 and obesity was present in 166 (20.1%). Of these 826 study cases, emergency cesarean section was performed in 593 (71.8%). Mean duration of procedure was 38.43±12.21 minutes and 562 (68.0%) had duration of procedure below 40 minutes. Overall, wound infection was noted in 145 (17.6%) women, In Group-A, wound infection was noted in 96 (23.2%) women and in Group-B it was in 49 (11.9%) (p<0.0001). Practical Implications: Clinicians can employ non-absorbable sutures to decrease the risk of post-operative wound infection after cesarean section. Conclusion: We found non-absorbable sutures after cesarean section to yield significantly less rates of wound infection when compared to absorbable sutures. Keywords: Absorbable suture, Non-absorbable suture, wound infection, cesarean section.

Background: The frequency and efficacy of absorbable and non-absorbable sutures in the treatment of traumatic surgical wounds are investigated in this study. In order to maximize suture selection for better clinical outcomes and fewer issues, it assesses their effects on healing, cosmetic results, and patient satisfaction. Objective: To determine the prevalence of cosmetically absorbable and non-absorbable sutures in the management of traumatic surgical wounds. Methodology: This was a randomized control trial carried out at Services Hospital duration of six months and using a calculated sample size of 80 based upon two means of suture infection. Patients aged 20–50 with traumatic surgical wounds in aesthetically sensitive areas such as the face, neck, or hands, in which the cosmetic outcomes were prominent. Results: The study analyzed 80 participants, with 53.8% aged 20–30, 43.8% aged 31–40, and 2.5% aged 41–50. Males comprised 57.5%, females 40.0%, and 2.6% were unspecified. Lacerations were the most common wound type (56.3%), followed by puncture wounds (32.5%) and abrasions (11.3%). Upper extremities were the most affected (46.3%), followed by the head and face (41.3%) and lower extremities (12.5%). Both absorbable and non-absorbable sutures were used equally. No significant correlation was found between suture type and scar appearance (p=0.243) or healing time (p=0.686). However, non-absorbable sutures were associated with significantly higher satisfaction levels (p=0.002). Conclusion: The study found that both absorbable and non-absorbable sutures were equally used in managing traumatic surgical wounds. No significant correlation was observed between suture type and scar appearance (p=0.243) or healing time (p=0.686). However, patient satisfaction significantly favored non-absorbable sutures (p=0.002), with recipients reporting higher levels of happiness compared to those with absorbable sutures.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the tissue response and strength of traditional and unidirectional suture materials, depending on the conditions of use and the timing following implantation. Methods: Eighty male Wistar rats were randomly assigned to four groups depending on the suture used: unidirectional absorbable V-locTM 180 or non-absorbable V-locTM PBT and traditional absorbable MaxonTM or non-absorbable NovafilTM. Three and six weeks following the closure of the abdominal wall defect (AWD) and subcutaneous suture implantation at the withers according to group assignment, 10 animals from each group were euthanized for implanted sutures mechanical testing and histological examination. Results: The inflammatory reaction in the AWD closure area was maximal and significantly different from the subcutaneous implantation by week 3 for all groups. At six weeks, the tissue reaction did not depend on the place of implantation. However, four rats from the MaxonTM group demonstrated suture failure with diastasis formation. Non-absorbable barbed sutures exhibited an absence of suture failure and the maximum scar thickness. Both intact absorbable materials (V-LocTM 180 and MaxonTM) exhibited a significant breaking strength margin over the non-absorbable. By week 6, the preserved strength of the V-locTM 180 sutures at the AWD was 33% (15–58%), and under the skin—49.7% (48–59%) (p = 0.005). For MaxonTM, these values were 38% (35–48%) for the AWD and 44% (34–49%) for the subcutaneous implantation. Conclusions: Absorbable and non-absorbable suture materials, depending on the conditions and timing of implantation, cause various tissue reactions which could affect the wound healing and the number of postoperative complications.