
doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.31280
pmid: 19085943
AbstractConventional soft‐tissue reclosure methods—sutures and staples—require substantial organized‐collagen content. Some tissues lack extensive intrinsic collagenous content. Wound disruption consequences range from newly closed abdominal wounds bursting open, to post‐cesarean wombs splitting at delivery, to heart valves loosening. Although sutures do approach the theoretical limit of normal force transfer‐cross‐sectional area times compressive strength, a different paradigm‐shear force transfer across the far greater surface attainable by fine fibers parallel to the potential disruptive force could exceed that theoretical limit. Capacity is now the product of frictional coefficient, existing tissue pressure, and contact area. Using a device comprising bundles of poly(ethylene terephthalate) fibers through tissue, we previously coupled muscles to devices and bones. Here we tested an analogous device for reclosing fascia‐stripped abdominal wall muscles. In 28 rabbits, fascia‐deprived rectus abdominus muscles were reclosed, using the experimental device or conventional sutures. Testing muscles from the 21 three‐week survivors, (with closure devices retained‐the usual clinical practice) demonstrated experimental failure strength which exceeded that of controls by 58%. Histologically, solid tissue elements did in‐grow between fibers for an extensive tissue‐prosthetic interface. Both histology and mechanical performance suggest the fiber technology presented herein surpasses conventional sutures in closure of collagen‐deficient tissues. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2009
Sutures, Animals, Rabbits, Muscle, Skeletal
Sutures, Animals, Rabbits, Muscle, Skeletal
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 8 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
