4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

BioGlue and Dermabond save time, leak less, and are not mechanically inferior to two-layer and modified one-layer vasovasostomy

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 91, 期 2, 页码 560-565

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.006

关键词

Vasovasostomy; tissue adhesive; microsurgery; BioGlue; CoSeal; Dermabond

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare operative time, patency. and integrity of glue-assisted versus suture-only vasovasostomies. Design: A Medline search revealed no vasovasostomy studies testing tissue adhesives other than fibrin. We compare glue-reinforced to suture-only vasovasostomies. Setting: An academic medical center. Patient(s): None. Intervention(s): Using bull vas deferens, we performed: [1]two-layer anastomoses, [2] modified one-layer anatomoses, and [3] Bioglue, Dermabond, or CoSeal-reinforced anastomoses supported by three transmural sutures. Main Outcome Measure(s): Operative times were recorded, patency verified, and microscopic dissection performed to rule out luminal glue intravasation. Destructive mechanical testing was then completed with statistical comparison of load to failure, displacement to failure, and linear stiffness. Result(s): Operative time was greatest for two-layer anastomoses and significantly reduced for all three glue-reinforced three-suture anastomoses. All techniques were patent and free of glue intravasation. BioGlue and Dermabond demonstrated greater integrity than all other techniques. Mechanically, BioGlue and Dermabond were superior to both the unreinforced three stitch and CoSeal groups and were capable of resisting higher loads before failure. Conclusion(S): Glue-reinforced anastomoses are significantly less time consuming than traditional techniques. BioGlue and Dermabond have greater mechanical integrity and may be superior to both CoSeal and the sutured techniques. (Fertil Steril(R) 2009;91:560-5. (C)2009 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

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

4.7
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