A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Ex vivo comparison of barbed and unbarbed sutures for the closure of caecal and pelvic flexure enterotomies in horses. | LitMetric

Ex vivo comparison of barbed and unbarbed sutures for the closure of caecal and pelvic flexure enterotomies in horses.

Vet Ital

Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy, largo P. Braccini 2‑5, 10095 Grugliasco (TO), Italy. E‑mail:

Published: September 2019

In this study the caecum and large colon were harvested from 24 slaughtered horses. On each sample, an 8‑cm long enterotomy was performed. Enterotomies were closed using either barbed or unbarbed glycomer‑631. We compared the time to close, appearance, length of suture material, bursting pressure, and costs associated with each type of material. Our findings demonstrated that time to close was significantly shorter (caecum, P = 0.034; pelvic flexure, P = 0.039) using barbed sutures (caecum 610.4 seconds; pelvic flexure 699.3 seconds) than unbarbed sutures (caecum 661.0 seconds, pelvic flexure 743.1 seconds). The length of suture material used was significantly less (caecum, P < 0.0001; pelvic flexure, P < 0.0001) with barbed (caecum 28.1 cm, pelvic flexure 32.0 cm,) compared with unbarbed sutures (caecum 41.6 cm; pelvic flexure 46.6 cm). There were no significant differences in bursting pressure (caecum, P = 0.294; pelvic flexure, P = 0.430) between barbed (caecum, 172.5 mmHg, pelvic flexure, 188.9 mmHg) and unbarbed sutures (caecum 178.3 mmHg, pelvic flexure 183.3 mmHg). The cost was higher using barbed sutures. However, the use of barbed sutures was faster, left less suture material in the tissue, and sustained comparable bursting pressure to unbarbed sutures. We therefore conclude that barbed sutures are a valid alternative to unbarbed sutures for closing large intestine enterotomy in horses.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.12834/VetIt.691.3383.2DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pelvic flexure
40
unbarbed sutures
24
barbed sutures
16
sutures caecum
16
suture material
12
bursting pressure
12
sutures
10
pelvic
10
flexure
10
caecum
10

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!