Riepe G, Meincke J, Nassutt R, Seemann D, Chakfé N, Morlock M, Gross-Fengels W, Imig H
Gefäss Centrum Harburg - GCH, Allgemeines Krankenhaus Harburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Zentralbl Chir. 2002 Feb;127(2):89-94. doi: 10.1055/s-2002-22027.
Protected vascular clamps are not new. Clamp associated damage of human arteries has already been published over 20 years ago. The necessity of protective clamps seems to have been forgotten. In our explant archive (230 explants) we have observed an accumulation of graft ruptures in the groin (13 of 25 ruptures). We presume a multifactorial process. Clamp damage could be part of it. The aim of this study is to prove the clamp induced damage of polyester vascular grafts and to examine whether protected clamps can reduce this.
Five unprotected (Aesculap(R) FB512R, FB502, FB517, Ulrich CC1235, CV3535) and 5 protected vascular clamp types (Aesculap(R) FB667, FB668, Edwards(R) - formally Baxter(R) - Fogarty(R) CV5050, CV5201, Edwards(R) Cosgrove(R) CV1033) were tested. A longitudinal burst test was performed after maximal clamp closure on 6 different, multifilament polyester yarns of 2 different vascular grafts manufacturers (B. Braun(R), Edwards(R)).
The yarn tests with protected clamps showed no difference to those of the unclamped yarns. After clamping with unprotected vascular clamps the stress-strain-diagrams differed significantly. The mean, maximum burst strength was up to 75 % lower. Video documentation revealed filament ruptures. Damage of the yarn surface was seen on a simple woven graft in scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
The application of unprotected vascular clamps on polyester vascular grafts is common in Germany (56 %). The observed damage of multifilament polyester yarns makes it necessary to re-consider the use of unprotected vascular clamps. The benefit for biological vessels has already been shown.
带保护装置的血管夹并非新鲜事物。20多年前就已发表过关于血管夹对人体动脉造成损伤的相关内容。保护夹的必要性似乎已被遗忘。在我们的外植体存档(230个外植体)中,我们观察到腹股沟处移植物破裂的情况有所累积(25例破裂中有13例)。我们推测这是一个多因素过程。血管夹损伤可能是其中一部分。本研究的目的是证实血管夹对聚酯血管移植物的损伤,并检验带保护装置的血管夹是否能减少这种损伤。
测试了5种无保护装置的血管夹(蛇牌FB512R、FB502、FB517、优利克CC1235、CV3535)和5种带保护装置的血管夹(蛇牌FB667、FB668、爱德华兹 - 原百特 - 福格蒂CV5050、CV5201、爱德华兹科斯格罗夫CV1033)。在对来自2家不同血管移植物制造商(贝朗、爱德华兹)的6种不同的复丝聚酯纱线进行最大程度的夹闭后,进行纵向爆破试验。
使用带保护装置血管夹的纱线测试结果与未夹闭纱线的测试结果无差异。使用无保护装置的血管夹夹闭后,应力 - 应变图有显著差异。平均最大爆破强度降低了高达75%。视频记录显示有细丝断裂。在扫描电子显微镜(SEM)下,在一种简单编织的移植物上可看到纱线表面的损伤。
在德国,对聚酯血管移植物使用无保护装置的血管夹很常见(56%)。观察到的复丝聚酯纱线损伤使得有必要重新考虑无保护装置血管夹的使用。其对生物血管的益处已得到证实。