Comparing the Tolerability of a Novel Wound Closure Device Using a Porcine Wound Model
Publication: Advances in Wound Care
Volume 7, Issue Number 6
Abstract
Objective: To compare the tolerability and mechanical tensile strength of acute skin wounds closed with nylon suture plus a novel suture bridge device (SBD) with acute skin wounds closed with nylon suture in a porcine model.
Approach: Four Yucatan pigs each received 12 4.5 cm full-thickness incisions that were closed with 1 of 4 options: Suture bridge with nylon, suture bridge with nylon and subdermal polyglactin, nylon simple interrupted, and nylon simple interrupted with subdermal polyglactin. Epithelial reaction, inflammation, and scarring were examined histologically at days 10 and 42. Wound strength was examined mechanically at days 10 and 42 on ex vivo wounds from euthanized pigs.
Results: Histopathology in the suture entry/exit planes showed greater dermal inflammation with a simple interrupted nylon suture retained for 42 days compared with the SBD retained for 42 days (p < 0.03). While tensile wound strength in the device and suture groups were similar at day 10, wounds closed with the devices were nearly 8 times stronger at day 42 compared with day 10 (p < 0.001).
Innovation: A novel SBD optimized for cutaneous wound closure that protects the skin surface from suture strands, forms a protective bridge over the healing wound edges, and knotlessly clamps sutures.
Conclusion: This study suggests that the use of a SBD increases the tolerability of nylon sutures in porcine acute skin wound closures allowing for prolonged mechanical support of the wound. For slow healing wounds, this may prevent skin wound disruption, such as edge necrosis and dehiscence.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
About the Authors
Katy L. Townsend, BVSc, MS, DACVS, is Assistant Professor of Small Animal Surgery at the Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University. She has clinical and research expertise in soft tissue surgery and surgical oncology. Jen Akeroyd, PhD, RN, is cofounder of JULVIA Technologies, Inc. Duncan S. Russell, BVMS, DACVP, is Assistant Professor at the Department of Biomedical Sciences, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University. Bria L. Robertson, Honors BS, Mechanical Engineering, was a graduate student at the Department of Materials Science, School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering, Oregon State University. Jamie J. Kruzic, PhD, is Professor and Deputy Head of School at the School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney. William Lear, MD, is a Board-Certified Dermatologist and fellowship-trained Mohs Surgeon, and director of the Silver Falls Dermatology Mohs Fellowship program. He has completed more than 15,000 Mohs cases. Dr. Lear presents both locally and nationally, and is actively engaged in research on surgical materials. He has authored numerous peer-reviewed publications and a textbook chapter for Surgery of the Skin. He is cofounder of JULVIA Technologies, Inc.
References
1.
Center for Health Statistics N. Number, rate, and standard error of all-listed surgical and nonsurgical procedures for discharges from short-stay hospitals, by selected procedure categories: United States, 2010. 2010. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhds/4procedures/2010pro4_numberrate.pdf (last accessed September 30, 2017).
2.
Al-Mubarak L, Al-Haddab M. Cutaneous wound closure materials: an overview and update. J Cutan Aesthet Surg 2013;6:178–188.
3.
Dumville JC, Coulthard P, Worthington HV, et al. Tissue adhesives for closure of surgical incisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;28:CD004287.
4.
Smith TO, Sexton D, Mann C, Donell S. Sutures versus staples for skin closure in orthopaedic surgery: meta-analysis. BMJ 2010;340:c1199.
5.
Grimaldi L, Cuomo R, Brandi C, Botteri G, D'Aniello C. Octyl-2-cyanoacrylate adhersive for skin closure: eight years experience. In Vivo 2015;29:145–148.
6.
Hadar E, Melamed N, Tzadikevitch-Geffen K, Yogev Y. Timing and risk factors of maternal complications of cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011;283:735–741.
7.
Biancari F, Tiozzo V. Staples versus sutures for closing leg wounds after vein graft harvesting for coronary artery bypass surgery. In: Biancari F, ed. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2010:CD008057.
8.
Zambacos GJ, Mandrekas AD. Complication rates in inferior pedicle reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118:274–275.
9.
Hunter JG, Martin E, Dawson LK, Baumhauer JF. The most common patient safety problems in elective foot and ankle orthopaedic surgery. www.aofas.org/PRC/meeting/Documents/TheMostCommonPatientSafetyProb.pdf (last accessed September 30, 2017).
10.
Sandy-Hodgetts K, Leslie GD, Lewin G, Hendrie D, Carville K. Surgical wound dehiscence in an Australian community nursing service: time and cost to healing. J Wound Care 2016;25:377–383.
11.
Dimick JB, Chen SL, Taheri PA, Henderson WG, Khuri SF, Campbell DA. Hospital costs associated with surgical complications: a report from the private-sector National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 2004;199:531–537.
12.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ—Quality Indicators. www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/Modules/psi_resources.aspx (last accessed October 13, 2017).
13.
Srivastava D, Taylor RS. Suturing technique and other closure materials. In: Robinson JK, Hanke CW, Siegel DM, Fratila A, eds. Surgery of the Skin: Procedural Dermatology. Philadelphia, Saunders (Imprint of Elsevier), 2015.
14.
Levenson SM, Geever EF, Crowley LV, et al. Healing of rat skin wounds. Ann Surg 1965;161:293.
15.
Ireton JE, Unger JG, Rohrich RJ. The role of wound healing and its everyday application in plastic surgery: a practical perspective and systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2013;1:pii: e10–e19.
16.
Franz MG, Kuhn MA, Wright TE, Wachtel TL, Robson MC. Use of the wound healing trajectory as an outcome determinant for acute wound healing. Wound Repair Regen 2000;8:511–516.
17.
Townsend KL, Lear W, Robertson BL, Kruzic JJ. Buried absorbable polyglactin 910 sutures do not result in stronger wounds in porcine full thickness skin incisions. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2016;63:386–389.
18.
Anderson K, Hamm RL. Factors that impair wound healing. J Am Coll Clin Wound Spec 2012;4:84–91.
19.
Guo S, Dipietro LA. Factors affecting wound healing. J Dent Res 2010;89:219–229.
20.
Akeroyd J, Kitada HH, Plauntz L, Lear W. Nurses' experience removing superficial nonabsorbable sutures from the skin. J Dermatol Nurses Assoc 2017;9:16–20.
21.
Bartlett LC. Pressure necrosis is the primary cause of wound dehiscence. Can J Surg 1985;28:27–30.
22.
Khorgami Z, Shoar S, Laghaie B, Aminian A, Hosseini Araghi N, Soroush A. Prophylactic retention sutures in midline laparotomy in high-risk patients for wound dehiscence: a randomized controlled trial. J Surg Res 2013;180:238–243.
23.
Hedlund CS. Large trunk wounds. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2006;36:847–872.
24.
Swindle MM, Makin A, Herron AJ, Clubb FJ, Frazier KS. Swine as models in biomedical research and toxicology testing. Vet Pathol 2012;49:344–356.
25.
Trott A. Basic laceration repair. In Trott A. Wounds and Lacerations: Emergency care and closure 3rd Edition. Philadelphia, Saunders (Imprint of Elsevier).
26.
Zaruby J, Gingras K, Taylor J, Maul D. An in vivo comparison of barbed suture devices and conventional monofilament sutures for cosmetic skin closure: biomechanical wound strength and histology. Aesthet Surg J 2011;31:232–240.
27.
Garden JM, Robinson JK, Marie Taute P, Lautenschlager EP, Joseph Leibovich S, Hartz RS. The low-output carbon dioxide laser for cutaneous wound closure of scalpel incisions: comparative tensile strength studies of the laser to the suture and staple for wound closure. Lasers Surg Med 1986;6:67–71.
28.
Forrester JC, Zederfeldt BH, Hayes TL, Hunt TK. Wolff's law in relation to the healing skin wound. J Trauma 1970;10:770–779.
29.
Sen CK. Wound healing essentials: let there be oxygen. Wound Repair Regen 2009;17:1–18.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Advances in Wound Care
Volume 7 • Issue Number 6 • June 2018
Pages: 177 - 184
Copyright
Copyright 2018, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
History
Published in print: June 2018
Published online: 1 June 2018
Published ahead of print: 20 March 2018
Accepted: 22 December 2017
Received: 27 November 2017
Topics
Authors
Author Disclosure and Ghostwriting
This study was funded by JULVIA Technologies Inc. of which W.L. and J.A. are the cofounders. No competing financial interests exist for D.S.R., B.L.R., J.J.K., and K.L.T. The content of this article was expressly written by the authors listed. No ghostwriters were used to write this article.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citation
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
View Options
Get Access
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.⚠ Society Access
If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.