4.6 Article

Nylon versus polydioxanone in the correction of rectus diastasis

Journal

PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
Volume 107, Issue 3, Pages 700-706

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200103000-00008

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nylon and polydioxanone are two sutures commonly used to correct rectus diastasis. Polydioxanone, as an al; sorbable suture, has: the advantage of not being palpable in thin patients. Because several forces act against the plication, an absorbable suture would not be efficient in these cases. In this study, two groups of 10 patients each were studied. These patients underwent abdominoplasty and correction of rectus diastasis. In the con tl-ol group, 2-0 nylon was used to plicate the anterior aponeurosis and 0-polydioxanone was used in the experimental group. The tension of the abdominal wall was measured with a dynamometer in both groups. The width of rectus diastasis was measured 3 cm above and 2 cm below the umbilicus, using a computed tomography (CT) scan before the operation and 3 weeks and 6 months after surgery. The width of rectus diastasis was measured intraoperatively at the same levels. The data were analyzed by Student's t test. Both groups had similar abdominal wall tension on both levels. The diastasis recti was completely corrected at both levels, as confirmed by the 3-week postoperative CT scan and the 6-month CT scan. At the superior level, the width of the rectus diastasis on the preoperative CT scan (2.6 +/- 0.7 cm) was similar to the values obtained intraoperatively (2.7 +/- 0.6 cm), showing no significant statistical difference. At the inferior level, the largest difference between the preoperative CT scan and the intraoperative finding was 0.3 cm. In conclusion, the correction of rectus diastasis with 2-0 nl lon and 0-polydioxanone was achieved and maintained after 6 months. CT scans are an accurate method for studying rectus diastasis and other muscles of the abdominal wall.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available