OBJECTIVE: To evaluate two different barbed sutures for closure of pelvic flexure enterotomies and compare results achieved with two previously described closure techniques.
STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo.
SAMPLE POPULATION: Twenty-four fresh cadaver adult equine large colons.
METHODS: Cadavers were randomly assigned to four closure groups (n = 6 each group): single-layer absorbable suture, double-layer absorbable suture, single-layer unidirectional barbed suture, or single-layer bidirectional barbed suture. Construction time, luminal reduction (percentage), bursting pressure, and method of failure were measured. Cost, leakage, exposed suture, and general appearance were recorded. Comparisons were performed with one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Bonferroni test (P < .05).
RESULTS: Double-layer absorbable closure had the highest bursting pressure (mean = 178.5 mm Hg, SD = 9.79, P < .001) but took more time (P = .001) compared with all other groups. The construction time of both barbed suture closures did not differ from the single-layer closure (P > .06). Bursting strengths of both unidirectional (mean = 91.6 mm Hg, SD = 5.57) and bidirectional (mean = 87.5 mm Hg, SD = 8.69) barbed sutures were lower (P > .006 for both) than those of both single- (mean = 117.6 mm Hg, SD = 11.69) and double-layer (mean = 178.5 mm Hg, SD = 9.79) closures. Unidirectional barbed suture closure had a reduction in lumen diameter (P = .004) compared with bidirectional and single-layer closures.
CONCLUSION: Enterotomy closures with the two different barbed suture patterns were comparable in bursting strength and construction time. However, the barbed suture patterns had lower bursting strength compared with traditional single- and double-layer closures. Unidirectional barbed suture closure also reduced lumen diameter.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Closure of a large colon enterotomy with barbed suture patterns may be less secure than single- and double-layer suture closure.