• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Modality of wound closure after total knee replacement: are staples as safe as sutures? A retrospective study of 181 patients.全膝关节置换术后伤口闭合方式:吻合钉与缝线一样安全吗?一项对181例患者的回顾性研究。
Patient Saf Surg. 2011 Oct 19;5(1):26. doi: 10.1186/1754-9493-5-26.
2
Sutures versus staples for skin closure in orthopaedic surgery: meta-analysis.骨科手术中皮肤缝合的缝线与订书钉比较:荟萃分析。
BMJ. 2010 Mar 16;340:c1199. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1199.
3
Absorbable subcuticular staples versus suture for caesarean section closure: a randomised clinical trial.可吸收皮下缝合线与缝线用于剖宫产术切口关闭的比较:一项随机临床试验。
BJOG. 2019 Mar;126(4):502-510. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15532. Epub 2018 Nov 28.
4
Staple versus suture closure for ankle fracture fixation: Retrospective chart review for safety and outcomes.用于踝关节骨折固定的吻合钉与缝线闭合:安全性和疗效的回顾性图表审查
Foot (Edinb). 2018 Dec;37:71-76. doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2018.08.003. Epub 2018 Aug 22.
5
Is the Risk of Infection Lower with Sutures than with Staples for Skin Closure After Orthopaedic Surgery? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.骨科手术后皮肤缝合中使用缝线比使用吻合器的感染风险更低吗?一项随机试验的荟萃分析。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 May;477(5):922-937. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000690.
6
Is There an Advantage to Knotless Barbed Suture in TKA Wound Closure? A Randomized Trial in Simultaneous Bilateral TKAs.全膝关节置换术伤口闭合中使用免打结倒刺缝线有优势吗?双侧同期全膝关节置换术的随机试验
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jun;473(6):2019-27. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4157-5. Epub 2015 Jan 29.
7
A prospective randomised comparison of 2 skin closure techniques in primary total hip arthroplasty surgery.初次全髋关节置换手术中两种皮肤缝合技术的前瞻性随机对照研究。
Hip Int. 2018 Jan;28(1):101-105. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000534.
8
Incision Closure for Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty: Is There a Difference in the Rate of Superficial Wound Complications With Suture Versus Staples?直接前路全髋关节置换术的切口闭合:缝线与吻合钉在浅表伤口并发症发生率上是否存在差异?
Cureus. 2024 Jun 11;16(6):e62145. doi: 10.7759/cureus.62145. eCollection 2024 Jun.
9
Cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction compared between staples and subcuticular suture technique for wound closure after primary total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.在初次全膝关节置换术后,比较皮内缝合与皮下缝合两种缝合技术的美容效果和患者满意度:一项随机对照试验。
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020 Sep;140(9):1255-1263. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03479-3. Epub 2020 May 18.
10
[Metal staples versus conventional suture for wound closure in total knee arthroplasty].[全膝关节置换术中金属吻合钉与传统缝线用于伤口闭合的比较]
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2014;81(3):233-7.

引用本文的文献

1
An Evaluation of the Safety of Half-Dose Direct Oral Anticoagulants Following Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Pilot Study.全关节置换术后半剂量直接口服抗凝剂安全性评估:一项试点研究。
Cureus. 2024 Oct 24;16(10):e72283. doi: 10.7759/cureus.72283. eCollection 2024 Oct.
2
Comparative Study of Use of Reusable Skin Staples and Vertical Mattress Sutures in the Closure of Midline Laparotomy Wounds.可重复使用皮肤吻合钉与垂直褥式缝合用于中线剖腹手术伤口闭合的比较研究
J West Afr Coll Surg. 2024 Jan-Mar;14(1):41-47. doi: 10.4103/jwas.jwas_50_23. Epub 2023 Dec 14.
3
Wound closure after total knee replacement: Comparison between staples and sutures.全膝关节置换术后伤口闭合:吻合钉与缝线的比较。
Pak J Med Sci. 2022 Jan;38(2):340-344. doi: 10.12669/pjms.38.ICON-2022.5782.
4
A comparison between barbed suture and conventional suture in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.倒刺缝线与传统缝线在全膝关节置换术中的比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Arthroplasty. 2020 Mar 27;2(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s42836-020-00028-6.
5
Multilayer Watertight Closure to Address Adverse Events From Primary Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Wound Closure Methods by Tissue Layer.多层防水闭合术应对初次全膝关节和髋关节置换术的不良事件:按组织层次对伤口闭合方法的系统评价
Arthroplast Today. 2021 Jul 8;10:180-189.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.05.015. eCollection 2021 Aug.
6
Comparison of Surgical Site Infection After Skin Closure by Prolene or Staples in Bilateral Simultaneous Knee Arthroplasty Patients: A Parallel Design Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol.双侧同期膝关节置换术患者中使用普理灵或吻合钉进行皮肤缝合后手术部位感染的比较:一项平行设计随机对照试验方案
Int J Surg Protoc. 2021 Aug 6;25(1):154-159. doi: 10.29337/ijsp.153. eCollection 2021.
7
Clinical outcome of different skin closure in total-knee arthroplasty: running subcuticular closure vs intermittent closure: A retrospective study.全膝关节置换术中不同皮肤缝合方式的临床结果:连续皮下缝合与间断缝合对比:一项回顾性研究
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Aug 21;99(34):e21947. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021947.
8
Cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction compared between staples and subcuticular suture technique for wound closure after primary total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.在初次全膝关节置换术后,比较皮内缝合与皮下缝合两种缝合技术的美容效果和患者满意度:一项随机对照试验。
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020 Sep;140(9):1255-1263. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03479-3. Epub 2020 May 18.
9
Complication rate of different wound closures after primary hip arthroplasty - A survey of 373 patients.初次髋关节置换术后不同伤口闭合方式的并发症发生率——对373例患者的调查
Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 2017 Dec 7;11:15-18. doi: 10.1016/j.asmart.2017.11.002. eCollection 2018 Jan.
10
Comparing Steri-Strip and surgical staple wound closures after primary total knee arthroplasties.初次全膝关节置换术后Steri-Strip与外科吻合钉伤口闭合的比较。
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017 Jan;27(1):113-118. doi: 10.1007/s00590-016-1848-x. Epub 2016 Sep 6.

本文引用的文献

1
Closure of hip wound, clips or subcuticular sutures: does it make a difference?髋部伤口闭合,使用夹子或皮下缝合:有区别吗?
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2006 Jun;16(2):124-129. doi: 10.1007/s00590-005-0043-2. Epub 2006 Mar 23.
2
A comparison of three methods of wound closure following arthroplasty: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial.关节置换术后三种伤口闭合方法的比较:一项前瞻性、随机、对照试验。
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Feb;88(2):238-42. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B2.16923.
3
Comparing wound complication rates following closure of hip wounds with metallic skin staples or subcuticular vicryl suture: a prospective randomised trial.比较使用金属皮肤吻合钉或皮下薇乔缝线闭合髋部伤口后的伤口并发症发生率:一项前瞻性随机试验。
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2004 Dec;12(2):191-3. doi: 10.1177/230949900401200210.
4
Clips versus suture technique: is there a difference?钛夹与缝合技术:有区别吗?
Can J Cardiol. 2000 Nov;16(11):1403-7.
5
Staple vs. subcuticular vicryl skin closure in knee replacement surgery: a spectrophotographic assessment of wound characteristics.膝关节置换手术中吻合钉与皮下可吸收缝合线皮肤闭合的比较:伤口特征的分光光度评估
Knee. 2000 Dec 1;7(4):239-243. doi: 10.1016/s0968-0160(00)00055-7.
6
Modifiable risk factors associated with deep sternal site infection after coronary artery bypass grafting.冠状动脉搭桥术后与深部胸骨部位感染相关的可改变风险因素。
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000 Jan;119(1):108-14. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5223(00)70224-8.
7
Comparison of skin stapling devices and standard sutures for pediatric scalp lacerations: a randomized study of cost and time benefits.小儿头皮裂伤皮肤缝合器械与标准缝线的比较:一项关于成本和时间效益的随机研究
J Pediatr. 1997 May;130(5):808-13. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(97)80025-x.
8
A comparison of a disposable skin stapler and nylon sutures for wound closure.一次性皮肤缝合器与尼龙缝线用于伤口闭合的比较。
S Afr Med J. 1982 Sep 4;62(11):371-2.
9
Mechanical sutures in surgery.手术中的机械缝合线。
Br J Surg. 1973 Mar;60(3):191-7. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800600307.
10
Skin closure using staples and nylon sutures: a comparison of results.使用吻合钉和尼龙缝线进行皮肤缝合:结果比较
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1987 Mar;69(2):76-8.

全膝关节置换术后伤口闭合方式:吻合钉与缝线一样安全吗?一项对181例患者的回顾性研究。

Modality of wound closure after total knee replacement: are staples as safe as sutures? A retrospective study of 181 patients.

作者信息

Newman Justin T, Morgan Steven J, Resende Gustavo V, Williams Allison E, Hammerberg E Mark, Dayton Michael R

机构信息

The Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado USA.

出版信息

Patient Saf Surg. 2011 Oct 19;5(1):26. doi: 10.1186/1754-9493-5-26.

DOI:10.1186/1754-9493-5-26
PMID:22011354
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3212897/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Surgical site wound closure plays a vital role in post-operative success. This effect is magnified in regard to commonly performed elective procedures such as total knee arthroplasty. The use of either sutures or staples for skin re-approximation remains a contested subject, which may have a significant impact on both patient safety and surgical outcome. The literature remains divided on this topic.

METHODS

Two cohorts of patients at a level one trauma and regional referral center were reviewed. Cohorts consisted of consecutive total knee arthroplasties performed by two surgeons who achieved surgical wound re-approximation by either staples or absorbable subcuticular sutures. Outcome variables included time of surgery, wound dehiscence, surgical site infection per Center for Disease Control criteria and repeat procedures for debridement and re-closure.

RESULTS

181 patients qualified for study inclusion. Staples were employed in 82 cases (45.3% of total) and sutures in 99 cases (54.7%). The staples group had no complications while the sutures group had 9 (9.1%). These consisted of: 4 infections (2 superficial, one deep, one organ/space); three patients required re-suturing for dehiscence; one allergic type reaction to suture material; and one gout flare resulting in dehiscence. The mean surgical time with sutures was 122.3 minutes (sd = 33.4) and with staples was 114 minutes (sd = 24.4).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated significantly fewer complications with staple use than with suture use. While all complications found in this study cannot be directly attributed to skin re-approximation method, the need for further prospective, randomized trials is established.

摘要

背景

手术切口闭合对术后成功起着至关重要的作用。对于全膝关节置换术等常见的择期手术而言,这种作用更为显著。使用缝线或吻合钉进行皮肤重新对合仍是一个有争议的问题,这可能对患者安全和手术结果产生重大影响。关于这一主题,文献观点不一。

方法

对一家一级创伤和区域转诊中心的两组患者进行了回顾。这两组患者均为连续接受全膝关节置换术的患者,由两位外科医生分别使用吻合钉或可吸收皮下缝线实现手术切口的重新对合。结果变量包括手术时间、伤口裂开、根据疾病控制中心标准判定的手术部位感染以及清创和重新闭合的重复手术。

结果

181例患者符合研究纳入标准。其中82例(占总数的45.3%)使用了吻合钉,99例(占54.7%)使用了缝线。吻合钉组无并发症,而缝线组有9例(9.1%)并发症。这些并发症包括:4例感染(2例表浅感染、1例深部感染、1例器官/腔隙感染);3例患者因伤口裂开需要重新缝合;1例对缝线材料的过敏型反应;以及由痛风发作导致的1例伤口裂开。使用缝线的平均手术时间为122.3分钟(标准差 = 33.4),使用吻合钉的平均手术时间为114分钟(标准差 = 24.4)。

结论

本研究表明,使用吻合钉比使用缝线的并发症明显更少。虽然本研究中发现的所有并发症不能直接归因于皮肤重新对合方法,但进一步进行前瞻性随机试验的必要性已然明确。