Optimal suture materials for contaminated gastrointestinal surgery: does infection influence the decrease of the tensile strength of sutures?

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Yoichi Tanaka (1)
  Sotaro Sadahiro (1)
  Kenji Ishikawa (1)
  Toshiyuki Suzuki (1)
  Akemi Kamijo (1)
  Seiki Tazume (2)
  Masanori Yasuda (3)
  
• 关键词：Suture ; Tensile strength ; Infection ; Contamination ; Gastrointestinal surgery
• 刊名：Surgery Today
• 出版年：2012
• 出版时间：December 2012
• 年：2012
• 卷：42
• 期：12
• 页码：1170-1175
• 全文大小：270KB
• 参考文献：1. Simmons BP. Guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control. 1983;11:133-3. CrossRef
  2. Garner JS. CDC guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections, 1985. Supersedes guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections published in 1982. Infect Control. 1986;7:193-00. (Originally published in November 1985).
  3. Suljagi? V, Jevtic M, Djordjevic B, Jovelic A. Surgical site infections in a tertiary health care center: prospective cohort study. Surg Today. 2010;40:763-1. CrossRef
  4. Polk HC Jr, Simpson CJ, Alexander JW. Guidelines for prevention of surgical wound infection. Arch Surg. 1983;118:1213-. CrossRef
  5. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:250-8. CrossRef
  6. Weiland DE, Bay RC, Sordi SD. Choosing the best abdominal closure by meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 1998;17:666-0. CrossRef
  7. Rucinski J, Margolis M, Panagopoulos G, Wise L. Closure of the abdominal midline fascia: meta-analysis delineates the optimal technique. Am Surg. 2001;67:421-.
  8. Adams IW, Bell MS, Driver RM, Fry WG. A comparative trial of polyglycolic acid and silk as suture materials for accidental wounds. Lancet. 1977;2(8050):1216-. CrossRef
  9. Watanabe A, Kohnoe S, Shimabukuro R, Yamanaka T, Iso Y, Baba H, et al. Risk factors associated with surgical site infection in upper and lower gastrointestinal surgery. Surg Today. 2008;38:404-2. CrossRef
  10. Kapadia CR, Mann JB, McGeehan D, Jose Biglin JE, Waxman BP, Dudley HA. Behaviour of synthetic absorbable sutures with and without synergistic enteric infection. Eur Surg Res. 1983;15:67-2. CrossRef
  11. Durney P, Bucknall TE. Assessment of suture for use in colonic surgery: an experimental study. J R Soc Med. 1984;77:472-.
  12. Elek SD, Conen PE. The virulence of / Staphylococcus pyogenes for man; a study of the problems of wound infection. Br J Exp Pathol. 1957;38:573-6.
  13. Williams DF. The effect of bacteria on absorbable sutures. J Biomed Mater Res. 1980;14:329-8. CrossRef
  14. Lee KH, Chu CC. The role of superoxide ions in the degradation of synthetic absorbable sutures. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;49:25-5. CrossRef
  15. Pietrzak WS, Kumar M, Eppley BL. The influence of temperature on the degradation rate of Lactosorb copolymer. J Craniofac Surg. 2003;14:176-3. CrossRef
  16. Howes EL, Sooy JW, Harvey SC. The healing of wounds as determined by their tensile strength. JAMA. 1929;92:42-. CrossRef
  17. Foresman PA, Edlich RF, Rodeheaver GT. The effect of new monofilament absorbable sutures on the healing of musculoaponeurotic incisions, gastrotomies, and colonic anastomoses. Arch Surg. 1989;124:708-0. CrossRef
  18. Douglas DM. The healing of aponeurotic incisions. Br J Surg. 1952;40:79-4. CrossRef
  19. van’t Riet M, Steyerberg EW, Nellensteyn J, Bonjer HJ, Jeekel J, et al. Meta-analysis of techniques for closure of midline abdominal incisions. Br J Surg. 2002;89:1350-. CrossRef
  20. Geiger D, Debus ES, Ziegler UE, Larena-Avellaneda A, Frosch M, Thiede A, et al. Capillary activity of surgical sutures and suture-dependent bacterial transport: a qualitative study. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2005;6:377-3. CrossRef
  21. Chu CC, Williams DF. Effects of physical configuration and chemical structure of suture materials on bacterial adhesion. A possible link to wound infection. Am J Surg. 1984;147:197-04. CrossRef
  22. Bucknall TE, Teare L, Ellis H. The choice of a suture to close abdominal incisions. Eur Surg Res. 1983;15:59-6. CrossRef
  23. Bourne RB, Bitar H, Andreae PR, Martin LM, Finlay JB, Marquis F. In vivo comparison of four absorbable sutures: Vicryl, Dexon Plus, Maxon and PDS. Can J Surg. 1988;31:43-.
  24. Tomihata K, Suzuki M, Oka T. A new resorbable monofilament suture. Polym Degrad Stab. 1998;59:13-. CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Yoichi Tanaka (1)
  Sotaro Sadahiro (1)
  Kenji Ishikawa (1)
  Toshiyuki Suzuki (1)
  Akemi Kamijo (1)
  Seiki Tazume (2)
  Masanori Yasuda (3)
  
  1. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tokai University, 143 Shimokasuya, Isehara, Kanagawa, 259-1193, Japan
  2. School of Health Sciences, Tokai University, 143 Shimokasuya, Isehara, Kanagawa, 259-1193, Japan
  3. Department of Pathology, Saitama Medical University, International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka, Saitama, 350-1298, Japan
  
• ISSN：1436-2813

文摘

Purpose Suture materials are selected based on the following factors: absorbable/non-absorbable, monofilament/multifilament, duration with sufficiently high tensile strength, and the tissue to be sutured. Absorbable sutures are hydrolyzed in tissues. However, little is known about the influence of infection on the hydrolysis and decrease in the tensile strength. Methods Four kinds of sutures, i.e., non-absorbable multifilament silk, non-absorbable monofilament polypropylene (Prolene?), absorbable multifilament polyglactin 910 (Vicryl?), and absorbable monofilament polydioxanone (PDS?) were implanted in the back of rats. A suspension of Escherichia coli?+?Bacteroides fragilis or saline was injected subcutaneously into the contaminated and clean condition groups, respectively. The sutures were removed 1, 2, 4 or 8?weeks after the implantation. Results There was significantly more severe inflammation macroscopically for the silk sutures under the contaminated conditions (p?=?0.03), however, no significant differences were observed among the other three sutures. All 4 kinds of sutures showed a reduction of the tensile strength over time. There were no significant differences in the magnitude of reduction between both the clean and contaminated conditions for any of the sutures. Conclusions The reduction of the tensile strength with time did not differ significantly between sutures exposed to contaminated and clean conditions, even for the absorbable sutures.