Polysorb suture provides the smoothest surface4* and less drag3 resulting in reduced tissue trauma and significantly lower incidence of suture spitting5‡.
Coated Polysorb absorbable suture is suitable for use in many surgical applications including general surgery, plastics, obstetrics & gynecologic, urological and ophthalmic surgeries.
† In R&D testing Polysorb™ sutures were statistically significantly comparable or stronger than Vicryl™* sutures during the CWHP:p<0.001 for 0-2 for commonly use sizes USP 1 to 3-0, October 2013.
™* Third party brands are trademarks of their respective owners. All other brands are trademarks of a Medtronic company.
* Without sacrificing knot tightness or security
‡ Compared to Vicryl™* suture
1. Polysorb™ Suture [instructions for use]. Mansfield, MA:Medtronic.
2. Vicryl™* Suture [instructions for use]. Ethicon.
3. Based on internal test report CMP-5347 Polysorb™ Sutures vs. Vicryl™* Sutures - Comparing the most popular sizes used in the market. 2013.
4. Debus ES, Geiger D, Sailer M, Ederer J, Thiede A. Physical, biological and handling characteristics of surgical suture material: a comparison of four different multifilament absorbable sutures. Eur Surg Res.1997;29(1):52-61.
5. Faulkner BC, Gear AJ, Hellewell TB, et al. Biomechanical performance of a braided absorbable suture. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 1996;6(3-4):169-179.
6. Zaruby J, Gingras K, Taylor J, Maul D. An in vivo comparison of barbed suture devices and conventional monofilament sutures for cosmetic skin closure: biomechanical wound strength and histology. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31(2):232-40.
7. Cong L, Li C, Wei B, Zhan L, et al. V-Loc180 suture in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a retrospective study comparing Polysorbto barbed suture used for vaginal cuff closure. Eur J ObstetGynecolReprodBiol. 2016;207:18-22.
8. Zhou Y, Guthrie G, Chuang A, Faro JP, et al. Unidirectional barbed suture versus interrupted vicrylsuture in vaginal cuff healing during robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Robot Surg. 2014;8(3):201-5.
9. Tinelli R, Litta P, Angioni S, BettocchiS, et al. A multicenterstudy comparing surgical outcomes and ultrasonographic evaluation of scarring after laparoscopic myomectomy with conventional versus barbed sutures. Int J GynaecolObstet. 2016;134(1):18-21.
10. Tillmanns TD, MabeA, Ulm MA, Lee D, et al. Vaginal Cuff Closure in Robotic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Barbed Versus Standard Suture. Journal of GynecologicSurgery. 2016;32(4):215-219.
11. Song T, Kim TJ, Kim WY, Lee SH. Comparison of barbed suture versus traditional suture in laparoendoscopicsingle-site myomectomy. Eur J ObstetGynecolReprodBiol. 2015;185:99-102.
12. TsafrirZ, Palmer M, DahlmanM, NawfalAK, et al. Long-term outcomes for different vaginal cuff closure techniques in robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J ObstetGynecolReprodBiol. 2017;210:7-12.
13. Calculation from V-LocGlobal Value Dossier May 2018. Brown DN, GobernJM. Unidirectional Barbed Suture for Vaginal-Cuff Closure in Laparoscopic and Robotic Hysterectomy. Journal of Gynecologic Surgery. 2016;32(3):167-172.
14. Huang MC, Hsieh CH, SuTH, Chen CP, et al. Safety and efficacy of unidirectional barbed suture in mini-laparotomy myomectomy. Taiwan J ObstetGynecol. 2013;52(1):53-6
15. NawfalAK, Eisenstein D, Theoharis E, DahlmanM, et al. Vaginal cuff closure during robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy: comparing vicrylto barbed sutures. JSLS. 2012;16(4):525-9.
16. Time Motion Study – Comparison of wound closure time using conventional techniques and knotless, self-anchoring surgical sutures in ex-vivo porcine model for both single layer and double layer closure in all closure techniques. Royal College of Surgeons, London, UK; Covidien V-Loc™ 180 Absorbable Wound Closure Device Time Study, Robert T. Grant, MD, MSc, FACS, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Argent Global Services.
17. Utilization of a Porcine Model to Demonstrate the Efficacy of an Absorbable Barbed Suture for Dermal Closure, UTSW, S. Brown.