4.6 Article

Dopamine hydrochloride and carboxymethyl chitosan coatings for multifilament surgical suture and their influence on friction during sliding contact with skin substitute

期刊

FRICTION
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 58-69

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40544-018-0242-6

关键词

friction; surgical suture; coating; Biomaterials; skin substitute

资金

  1. Marie Curie CIG [PCIG10-GA-2011-303922]
  2. Shanghai Natural Science Foundation [17ZR1442100]
  3. Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Innovation Action Plan International Cooperation Project [15540723600]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to reduce the damage to tissue and fill the interstices between fibers, multifilament sutures are frequently treated with certain coating materials. The objective of this study was to create and characterize dopamine hydrochloride (DA) and carboxymethyl chitosan (CMCS) coatings on surgical sutures and investigate their effects on the frictional performance of the surgical sutures during sliding through a skin substitute. The effects of the treatment on the physical and chemical characteristics of the surgical sutures were evaluated. The friction force of the surgical sutures during sliding through the skin substitute was experimentally determined using a penetration friction apparatus. The coefficient of friction (COF) was calculated using a linear elastic model and was used to estimate the frictional behavior of the surgical suture-skin interactions. The results showed that the DA coating could evenly deposit on the surface of the etched multifilament surgical suture surfaces in a weakly alkaline buffer solution. The CMCS coating material could form a uniform film on the surface of the sutures. Minor changes in the surface roughness of the multifilament surgical sutures with different treatments occurred in this study. The friction force and the COF of the multifilament surgical sutures with DA and CMCS coating showed little change when compared with untreated multifilament surgical sutures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据