J Knee Surg 2011; 24(1): 055-060
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1275400
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

© Thieme Medical Publishers

Water-Tight Knee Arthrotomy Closure: Comparison of a Novel Single Bidirectional Barbed Self-Retaining Running Suture Versus Conventional Interrupted Sutures

Michael Nett1 , Rui Avelar2 , Michael Sheehan3 , Fred Cushner1
  • 1Department of Orthopaedics, Insall Scott Kelly Institute for Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New York, New York
  • 2Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • 3North Shore-LIJ Bioskills Education Center, Lake Success, New York
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
21 March 2011 (online)

Zoom Image

ABSTRACT

Standard medial parapatellar arthrotomies of 10 cadaveric knees were closed with either conventional interrupted absorbable sutures (control group, mean of 19.4 sutures) or a single running knotless bidirectional barbed absorbable suture (experimental group). Water-tightness of the arthrotomy closure was compared by simulating a tense hemarthrosis and measuring arthrotomy leakage over 3 minutes. Mean total leakage was 356 mL and 89 mL in the control and experimental groups, respectively (p = 0.027). Using 8 of the 10 knees (4 closed with control sutures, 4 closed with an experimental suture), a tense hemarthrosis was again created, and iatrogenic suture rupture was performed: a proximal suture was cut at 1 minute; a distal suture was cut at 2 minutes. The impact of suture rupture was compared by measuring total arthrotomy leakage over 3 minutes. Mean total leakage was 601 mL and 174 mL in the control and experimental groups, respectively (p = 0.3). In summary, using a cadaveric model, arthrotomies closed with a single bidirectional barbed running suture were statistically significantly more water-tight than those closed using a standard interrupted technique. The sample size was insufficient to determine whether the two closure techniques differed in leakage volume after suture rupture.