Abhari Roxanna E, Martins Joana A, Morris Hayley L, Mouthuy Pierre-Alexis, Carr Andrew
Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Old Road, Oxford, UK.
J Biomater Appl. 2017 Sep;32(3):410-421. doi: 10.1177/0885328217720641. Epub 2017 Jul 17.
Today's sutures are the result of a 4000-year innovation process with regard to their materials and manufacturing techniques, yet little has been done to enhance the therapeutic value of the suture itself. In this review, we explore the historical development, regulatory database and clinical literature of sutures to gain a fuller picture of suture advances to date. First, we examine historical shifts in suture manufacturing companies and review suture regulatory databases to understand the forces driving suture development. Second, we gather the existing clinical evidence of suture efficacy from reviewing the clinical literature and the Food and Drug Administration database in order to identify to what extent sutures have been clinically evaluated and the key clinical areas that would benefit from improved suture materials. Finally, we apply tissue engineering and regenerative medicine design hypotheses to suture materials to identify routes by which bioactive sutures can be designed and passed through regulatory hurdles, to improve surgical outcomes. Our review of the clinical literature revealed that many of the sutures currently in use have been available for decades, yet have never been clinically evaluated. Since suture design and development is industry driven, incremental modifications have allowed for a steady outflow of products while maintaining a safe regulatory position and limiting costs. Until recently, there has been little academic interest in suture development, however the rise of regenerative medicine strategies is shifting the suture paradigm from an inert material, which mechanically approximates tissue, to a bioactive material, which also actively promotes cell-directed repair and a positive healing response. These materials hold significant therapeutic potential, but could be associated with an increased regulatory burden, cost, and clinical evaluation compared with current devices.
当今的缝线是其材料和制造技术历经4000年创新过程的结果,但在提升缝线本身的治疗价值方面却进展甚微。在本综述中,我们探讨了缝线的历史发展、监管数据库和临床文献,以更全面地了解迄今为止缝线的进展情况。首先,我们研究了缝线制造公司的历史变迁,并查阅了缝线监管数据库,以了解推动缝线发展的因素。其次,我们通过查阅临床文献和美国食品药品监督管理局的数据库,收集了缝线疗效的现有临床证据,以便确定缝线在多大程度上经过了临床评估,以及哪些关键临床领域将受益于改良的缝线材料。最后,我们将组织工程和再生医学设计假设应用于缝线材料,以确定设计生物活性缝线并使其通过监管障碍从而改善手术效果的途径。我们对临床文献的综述表明,目前使用的许多缝线已经存在数十年,但从未经过临床评估。由于缝线的设计和开发是由行业驱动的,渐进式的改进使得产品能够持续推出,同时保持安全的监管地位并控制成本。直到最近,学术界对缝线开发的兴趣一直不大,然而再生医学策略的兴起正在将缝线范式从一种机械地对组织进行近似的惰性材料,转变为一种还能积极促进细胞定向修复和积极愈合反应的生物活性材料。这些材料具有巨大的治疗潜力,但与当前的器械相比,可能会带来更大的监管负担、成本和临床评估。