Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 27, Issue 10, pp 3830–3834 | Cite as

The application of the V-Loc closure device for gastrointestinal sutures: a preliminary study

  • Elena NemecekEmail author
  • Lukas Negrin
  • Claudia Beran
  • Romina Nemecek
  • Christian Hollinsky
Article

Abstract

Background

Leakage is one of the major complications in gastrointestinal surgery. This preliminary study compared a new barbed absorbable thread for gastrointestinal sutures with monofil suture material in a cadaver model.

Methods

In this study, mechanical experiments were performed in 20 recently deceased individuals. Incisions were made in the small intestine, colon, and stomach, and then sutures were created with the V-Loc closure device and monofil suture material. Intestinal bursting pressure was measured by inserting a balloon and slowly filling it with air until there was a dehiscence, or wall or suture rupture.

Results

The bursting pressures differed significantly between the two sutures in the small intestine, showing the advantage of the V-Loc closure device, which had a mean bursting pressure of 116.2 mmHg compared with 110 mmHg for the monofil suture (p = 0.003). The mean bursting pressure did not differ significantly between the two sutures in the colon and the stomach. The mean bursting pressures for the V-Loc closure device were 141.3 mmHg (stomach) and 137.2 mmHg (colon) compared with the monofil suture material bursting pressures of 133 mmHg (stomach) and 134.8 mmHg (colon).

Conclusions

Because the bursting strength of the sutures created with monofil suture material differs significantly from that of the V-Loc closure device, the V-Loc suture material should be used for gastrointestinal sutures. Although the two sutures did not differ significantly in the colon or the stomach, the V-Loc closure device should be used for these as well because its advantages may overrule those of the monofil suture. No knot tying is required, and the operating time can be shorter. Especially for laparoscopic surgery, the V-Loc closure device is recommended.

Keywords

Barbed absorbable thread Gastrointestinal suture Intestinal bursting pressure Laparoscopic gastrointestinal anastomoses Leakage V-Loc closure device 

Notes

Disclosures

Elena Nemecek, Lukas Negrin, Claudia Beran, Romina Nemecek, and Christian Hollinsky have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Mohr Z, Willis S (2010) Intestinal anastomoses and techniques in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Chirurg 67:1–7Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hyman N, Manchester TL, Osler T, Burns B, Cataldo PA (2007) Anastomotic leaks after intestinal anastomosis: it’s later than you think. Ann Surg 245:254–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Komen N, van der Wal HC, Ditzel M, Kleinrensik GJ, Jeekel H, Lange JF (2009) Colorectal anastomotic leakage: a new experimental model. J Surg Res 155:7–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hope W, Zerey M, Schmelzer TM, Newcomb WL, Paton BL, Heath JJ, Peindl RD, Norton HJ, Lincourt AE, Heniford BT, Gersin KS (2009) A comparison of gastrojejunal anastomoses with or without buttressing in a porcine model. Surg Endosc 23:800–807PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ozel SK, Kazez A, Akpolat N (2006) Does a fibrin-collagen patch support early anastomotic healing in the colon? An experimental study. Tech Coloproctol 10:233–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anwar S, Hughes S, Eadie AJ, Scott NA (2004) Anastomotic technique and survival after right hemicolectomy for colorectal cancer. Surgeon 2:277–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lustosa SA, Matos D, Atallah AN, Castro AA (2002) Stapled versus hand-sewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Sao Paulo Med J 120:132–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Offodile AC II, Feingold DL, Nasar A, Whelan RL, Arnell TD (2010) High incidence of technical errors involving the EEA circular stapler: a single-institution experience. J Am Coll Surg 210:331–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zoedler T, Becker H, Roeher HD (1995) Continuous single-layer anastomosis as the standard procedure in the gastrointestinal tract. Chirurg 66:50–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stumpf M, Klinge U, Mertens PR (2004) Anastomotic leakage in the gastrointestinal tract: repair and prognosis. Chirurg 75:1056–1062PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demyttenaere SV, Nau P, Henn M, Beck C, Zaruby J, Primavera M, Kirsch D, Miller J, Liu JJ, Bellizzi A, Melvin WS (2009) Barbed suture for gastrointestinal closure: a randomized control trial. Surg Innov 16:237–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Sooriakumaran P, Slevin A, Grover S, Waldman O, Rajan S, Herman M, Berryhill R Jr, Leung R (2010) Use of a novel absorbable barbed plastic surgical suture enables a “self-clinching” technique of vesicourethral anastomosis during robot-assisted prostatectomy and improves anastomotic times. J Endourol 24:1645–1650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bush CM, Prosser JD, Morrison MP, Sandhu G, Wenger KH, Pashley DH, Birchall MA, Postma GN, Weinberger PM (2012) New technology applications: knotless barbed suture for tracheal resection anastomosis. Laryncoscope 122:1062–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patri P, Beran C, Stjepanovic J, Sandberg S, Tuchmann A, Hollinsky C (2011) V-Loc, a new wound closure device for peritoneal closure—Is it safe? A comparative study of different peritoneal closure systems. Surg Innov 18:145–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kennedy GD, Heise C, Rajamanickam V, Harms B, Foley EF (2009) Laparoscopy decreases postoperative complication rates after abdominal colectomy: results from the national surgical quality improvement program. Ann Surg 249:596–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tong DK, Law WL (2007) Laparoscopic versus open right hemicolectomy for carcinoma of the colon. JSLS 11:76–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weeks JC, Nelson H, Gelber S, Sargent D, Schroeder G (2002) Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 287:321–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW Jr, Hellinger M, Flanagan R Jr, Peters W, Nelson H (2007) Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST study group trial. Ann Surg 246:655–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tiwari MM, Reynoso JF, High R, Tsang AW, Oleynikov D (2010) Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of common laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc 25(4):1127–1135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Luglio G, Nelson H (2010) Laparoscopy for colon cancer: state of the art. Surg Oncol Clin North Am 19:777–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Nemecek
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lukas Negrin
    • 2
  • Claudia Beran
    • 3
  • Romina Nemecek
    • 4
  • Christian Hollinsky
    • 3
  1. 1.Department for Orthopaedics and Orthopaedic SurgeryMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department for TraumatologyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department for SurgerySozialmedizinisches Zentrum FloridsdorfViennaAustria
  4. 4.Department for DermatologyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations