Breaking strength of barbed polypropylene sutures

Rater-blinded, controlled comparison with nonbarbed sutures of various calibers

Rashid Rashid, Mark Sartori, Lucile E. White, Mark T. Villa, Simon S Yoo, Murad Alam*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the strength of 2.0 barbed polypropylene suture, and, specifically, to determine the load required to break this suture, and to compare this with the strength of nonbarbed polypropylene suture. Design: Rater-blinded, controlled trial. The individual responsible for setting up the experimental conditions was not blinded. Setting: Biomechanics laboratory in an academic medical center. Materials: This study did not include human subjects. Materials used included six 2.0 barbed polypropylene sutures and 3 each of 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 nonbarbed polypropylene sutures. Each suture was randomly selected from a different batch or box of similar sutures. Intervention: Each suture was strung between 2 (top and bottom) cylinders and tied with a surgeon's knot. A tensile testing device was used to apply increasing force until the suture broke. Data were acquired through an analog-to-digital board on an IBM-compatible computer using commercially available software. Main Outcome Measures: Ultimate strength, stiffness, and elongation before suture rupture. Results: Strength of the barbed sutures (mean [SD] ultimate strength, 39.5 [9.0] N) was intermediate between that of 2.0 (55.0 N) and 3.0 (36.4 N) nonbarbed sutures and was not significantly different from that of 3.0 nonbarbed sutures (P = .5). Barbed 2.0 polypropylene sutures differed significantly (P < .001) from each of the other types of nonbarbed sutures on measures of stiffness and elongation. Elongation of barbed sutures was closest to that of 3.0 nonbarbed sutures (P = .002). Stiffness of the barbed sutures (mean [SD], 4.7 [0.7] N/mm) was markedly in excess of that of any of the other suture types (P < .001). Conclusions: Barbed 2.0 polypropylene sutures seem to be at least as strong as 3.0 nonbarbed polypropylene sutures. As such, barbed sutures are significantly stronger than their rated strength, which has been stated as comparable to 4.0 nonbarbed sutures. This has implications for the long-term in vivo safety of barbed sutures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)869-872
Number of pages4
JournalArchives of dermatology
Volume143
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2007

Fingerprint

Polypropylenes
Sutures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dermatology

Cite this

@article{baedc0195ff2445695121a1b1bc603cd,
title = "Breaking strength of barbed polypropylene sutures: Rater-blinded, controlled comparison with nonbarbed sutures of various calibers",
abstract = "Objectives: To assess the strength of 2.0 barbed polypropylene suture, and, specifically, to determine the load required to break this suture, and to compare this with the strength of nonbarbed polypropylene suture. Design: Rater-blinded, controlled trial. The individual responsible for setting up the experimental conditions was not blinded. Setting: Biomechanics laboratory in an academic medical center. Materials: This study did not include human subjects. Materials used included six 2.0 barbed polypropylene sutures and 3 each of 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 nonbarbed polypropylene sutures. Each suture was randomly selected from a different batch or box of similar sutures. Intervention: Each suture was strung between 2 (top and bottom) cylinders and tied with a surgeon's knot. A tensile testing device was used to apply increasing force until the suture broke. Data were acquired through an analog-to-digital board on an IBM-compatible computer using commercially available software. Main Outcome Measures: Ultimate strength, stiffness, and elongation before suture rupture. Results: Strength of the barbed sutures (mean [SD] ultimate strength, 39.5 [9.0] N) was intermediate between that of 2.0 (55.0 N) and 3.0 (36.4 N) nonbarbed sutures and was not significantly different from that of 3.0 nonbarbed sutures (P = .5). Barbed 2.0 polypropylene sutures differed significantly (P < .001) from each of the other types of nonbarbed sutures on measures of stiffness and elongation. Elongation of barbed sutures was closest to that of 3.0 nonbarbed sutures (P = .002). Stiffness of the barbed sutures (mean [SD], 4.7 [0.7] N/mm) was markedly in excess of that of any of the other suture types (P < .001). Conclusions: Barbed 2.0 polypropylene sutures seem to be at least as strong as 3.0 nonbarbed polypropylene sutures. As such, barbed sutures are significantly stronger than their rated strength, which has been stated as comparable to 4.0 nonbarbed sutures. This has implications for the long-term in vivo safety of barbed sutures.",
author = "Rashid Rashid and Mark Sartori and White, {Lucile E.} and Villa, {Mark T.} and Yoo, {Simon S} and Murad Alam",
year = "2007",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/archderm.143.7.869",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "143",
pages = "869--872",
journal = "JAMA Dermatology",
issn = "2168-6068",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "7",

}

Breaking strength of barbed polypropylene sutures : Rater-blinded, controlled comparison with nonbarbed sutures of various calibers. / Rashid, Rashid; Sartori, Mark; White, Lucile E.; Villa, Mark T.; Yoo, Simon S; Alam, Murad.

In: Archives of dermatology, Vol. 143, No. 7, 01.07.2007, p. 869-872.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Breaking strength of barbed polypropylene sutures

T2 - Rater-blinded, controlled comparison with nonbarbed sutures of various calibers

AU - Rashid, Rashid

AU - Sartori, Mark

AU - White, Lucile E.

AU - Villa, Mark T.

AU - Yoo, Simon S

AU - Alam, Murad

PY - 2007/7/1

Y1 - 2007/7/1

N2 - Objectives: To assess the strength of 2.0 barbed polypropylene suture, and, specifically, to determine the load required to break this suture, and to compare this with the strength of nonbarbed polypropylene suture. Design: Rater-blinded, controlled trial. The individual responsible for setting up the experimental conditions was not blinded. Setting: Biomechanics laboratory in an academic medical center. Materials: This study did not include human subjects. Materials used included six 2.0 barbed polypropylene sutures and 3 each of 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 nonbarbed polypropylene sutures. Each suture was randomly selected from a different batch or box of similar sutures. Intervention: Each suture was strung between 2 (top and bottom) cylinders and tied with a surgeon's knot. A tensile testing device was used to apply increasing force until the suture broke. Data were acquired through an analog-to-digital board on an IBM-compatible computer using commercially available software. Main Outcome Measures: Ultimate strength, stiffness, and elongation before suture rupture. Results: Strength of the barbed sutures (mean [SD] ultimate strength, 39.5 [9.0] N) was intermediate between that of 2.0 (55.0 N) and 3.0 (36.4 N) nonbarbed sutures and was not significantly different from that of 3.0 nonbarbed sutures (P = .5). Barbed 2.0 polypropylene sutures differed significantly (P < .001) from each of the other types of nonbarbed sutures on measures of stiffness and elongation. Elongation of barbed sutures was closest to that of 3.0 nonbarbed sutures (P = .002). Stiffness of the barbed sutures (mean [SD], 4.7 [0.7] N/mm) was markedly in excess of that of any of the other suture types (P < .001). Conclusions: Barbed 2.0 polypropylene sutures seem to be at least as strong as 3.0 nonbarbed polypropylene sutures. As such, barbed sutures are significantly stronger than their rated strength, which has been stated as comparable to 4.0 nonbarbed sutures. This has implications for the long-term in vivo safety of barbed sutures.

AB - Objectives: To assess the strength of 2.0 barbed polypropylene suture, and, specifically, to determine the load required to break this suture, and to compare this with the strength of nonbarbed polypropylene suture. Design: Rater-blinded, controlled trial. The individual responsible for setting up the experimental conditions was not blinded. Setting: Biomechanics laboratory in an academic medical center. Materials: This study did not include human subjects. Materials used included six 2.0 barbed polypropylene sutures and 3 each of 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 nonbarbed polypropylene sutures. Each suture was randomly selected from a different batch or box of similar sutures. Intervention: Each suture was strung between 2 (top and bottom) cylinders and tied with a surgeon's knot. A tensile testing device was used to apply increasing force until the suture broke. Data were acquired through an analog-to-digital board on an IBM-compatible computer using commercially available software. Main Outcome Measures: Ultimate strength, stiffness, and elongation before suture rupture. Results: Strength of the barbed sutures (mean [SD] ultimate strength, 39.5 [9.0] N) was intermediate between that of 2.0 (55.0 N) and 3.0 (36.4 N) nonbarbed sutures and was not significantly different from that of 3.0 nonbarbed sutures (P = .5). Barbed 2.0 polypropylene sutures differed significantly (P < .001) from each of the other types of nonbarbed sutures on measures of stiffness and elongation. Elongation of barbed sutures was closest to that of 3.0 nonbarbed sutures (P = .002). Stiffness of the barbed sutures (mean [SD], 4.7 [0.7] N/mm) was markedly in excess of that of any of the other suture types (P < .001). Conclusions: Barbed 2.0 polypropylene sutures seem to be at least as strong as 3.0 nonbarbed polypropylene sutures. As such, barbed sutures are significantly stronger than their rated strength, which has been stated as comparable to 4.0 nonbarbed sutures. This has implications for the long-term in vivo safety of barbed sutures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34447511644&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34447511644&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archderm.143.7.869

DO - 10.1001/archderm.143.7.869

M3 - Article

VL - 143

SP - 869

EP - 872

JO - JAMA Dermatology

JF - JAMA Dermatology

SN - 2168-6068

IS - 7

ER -