Breaking strength of barbed polypropylene sutures: rater-blinded, controlled comparison with nonbarbed sutures of various calibers.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the strength of 2.0 barbed polypropylene suture, and, specifically, to determine the load required to break this suture, and to compare this with the strength of nonbarbed polypropylene suture. DESIGN: Rater-blinded, controlled trial. The individual responsible for setting up the experimental conditions was not blinded. SETTING: Biomechanics laboratory in an academic medical center. MATERIALS: This study did not include human subjects. Materials used included six 2.0 barbed polypropylene sutures and 3 each of 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 nonbarbed polypropylene sutures. Each suture was randomly selected from a different batch or box of similar sutures. INTERVENTION: Each suture was strung between 2 (top and bottom) cylinders and tied with a surgeon's knot. A tensile testing device was used to apply increasing force until the suture broke. Data were acquired through an analog-to-digital board on an IBM-compatible computer using commercially available software. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ultimate strength, stiffness, and elongation before suture rupture. RESULTS: Strength of the barbed sutures (mean [SD] ultimate strength, 39.5 [9.0] N) was intermediate between that of 2.0 (55.0 N) and 3.0 (36.4 N) nonbarbed sutures and was not significantly different from that of 3.0 nonbarbed sutures (P = .5). Barbed 2.0 polypropylene sutures differed significantly (P < .001) from each of the other types of nonbarbed sutures on measures of stiffness and elongation. Elongation of barbed sutures was closest to that of 3.0 nonbarbed sutures (P = .002). Stiffness of the barbed sutures (mean [SD], 4.7 [0.7] N/mm) was markedly in excess of that of any of the other suture types (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Barbed 2.0 polypropylene sutures seem to be at least as strong as 3.0 nonbarbed polypropylene sutures. As such, barbed sutures are significantly stronger than their rated strength, which has been stated as comparable to 4.0 nonbarbed sutures. This has implications for the long-term in vivo safety of barbed sutures.

Pyoderma gangrenosum related to a new granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

A 23-year-old Caucasian man diagnosed with stage IVB Hodgkin's disease was referred to a university oncology section after completing 1.5 cycles of chemotherapy. His chemotherapy consisted of doxorubicin HCL, bleomycin, dacarbazine, and vinblastine, with prophylactic administration of a granulocyte colony stimulating factor. He had developed postchemotherapy complications of possible cellulitis and necrotizing fasciitis that required wound debridement. The wound and tissue cultures were negative. Biopsies taken at the time revealed a dense inflammatory infiltrate consistent with an abscess. Over the course of 2 months, the wound healed with systemic antibiotics. The patient was reluctant to resume chemotherapy for his Hodgkin's disease because of his previous presumed skin infections. However, positive emission tomographic scanning revealed disease progression. Doxorubicin, bleomycin, dacarbazine, and prophylactic pegfilgrastim (a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor), were administered. Vinblastine was excluded from the new regimen. Shortly after chemotherapy and an injection of pegfilgrastim, the patient developed poorly defined, rapidly progressive erythema, edema, and pain in his right forearm. He presented to the emergency room, was evaluated by the orthopedics service, and taken to the operating room for debridement of suspected necrotizing fasciitis. When the dermatology service consulted the following day, the patient had developed an erythematous, edematous, tender plaque on his chest. After developing two additional lesions that began to ulcerate despite treatment with imipenem, vancomycin, clindamycin, rifampin, and gentamicin, the patient consented to a skin biopsy. His wound cultures continued to be negative.

Barbed sutures: a review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial mention in the popular press, there is little in the plastic surgery or dermatology literature regarding the safety, efficacy, longevity, or complications of barbed suture suspension procedures. The authors review the literature to estimate several clinical parameters pertaining to barbed thread suspensions. METHODS: The authors performed a MEDLINE search using the keywords "barbed and suture," "thread and suspension," "Aptos," "Featherlift," and "Contour Thread." RESULTS: The authors identified six studies that met their criteria of addressing midface elevation with barbed thread suspension. These detected some adverse events, but most of these were minor, self-limited, and of short duration. Less clear are the data on the extent of the peak correction and the longevity of effect. Objective outcome measures and long-term follow-up data were not provided in a systematic manner in the few available studies. CONCLUSIONS: Suspension of the aging face with barbed sutures offers the promise of a minimally invasive technique with diminished adverse events. The technique is in its infancy, but it has potential to be a useful and effective clinical tool as further innovations are made in the clinic and laboratory.