We’re innovating and investing to improve suture choice and performance, and to deliver a better patient experience.
The V-Loc™ wound closure device may deliver superior wound healing when compared to conventional suture in the initial 7 days.4,‡
The V-Loc™ device:
|V-LOC™ 90 ABSORBABLE DEVICE10||V-LOC™ 180 ABSORBABLE Device11||V-LOC™ PBT NONABSORBABLE DEVICE12|
|TENSILE STRENGTH||14 days||21 days||Permanent|
|ABSORPTION PROFILE||90-110 days||180 days||Permanent|
|PROCEDURAL APPLICATIONS||Soft tissue approximation where support is required consistent with the absorption profile||Soft tissue approximation where support is required consistent with the absorption profile||Soft tissue approximation|
|COLOR||Undyed, violet||Undyed, green||Blue|
|COMPOSITION||Glycolide, dioxanone, and trimethylene carbonate||Copolymer of glycolic acid and trimethylene carbonate||Polybutester|
|INDICATIONS||V-Loc™ 90 device and V-Loc™ 180 absorbable wound closure devices are indicated for soft tissue approximation where use of an absorbable suture is appropriate.||V-Loc™ PBT non-absorbable wound closure devices are indicated for soft tissue approximation.|
†Animal data may not correlate with human clinical outcomes.
‡V-Loc™ device launched in 2009.
§As compared to conventional sutures.
ΩBench test data may not be indicative of clinical performance.
1. 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.
2. Alessandri F, Remorgida V, Venturini PL, Ferrero S. Unidirectional barbed suture versus continuous suture with intracorporeal knots in laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomized study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(6):725-729.
3. Rubin JP, Hunstad JP, Polynice A, Gusenoff JA, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing absorbable barbed sutures versus conventional absorbable sutures for dermal closure in open surgical procedures. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34(2):272-83.
4. Brown, S. Utilization of a porcine model to demonstrate the efficacy of an absorbable barbed suture for dermal closure, UTSW, June 2009.
5. Fouda, U. M., Elsetohy, K. A. Elshaer, H. S. Barbed versus conventional suture: A randomized trial for suturing the endometrioma bed after laparoscopic excision of ovarian endometrioma. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(6),962-8.
6. Krishnamoorthy B, Shepherd N, Critchley WR, Nair J, et al. A randomized study comparing traditional monofilament knotted sutures with barbed knotless sutures for donor leg wound closure in coronary artery bypass surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;22(2):161-7.
7. Koide S, Smoll NR, Liew J, Smith K, et al. A randomized 'N-of-1' single blinded clinical trial of barbed dermal sutures versus smooth sutures in elective plastic surgery shows differences in scar appearance two-years post-operatively. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68(7):1003-1009.
8. Song T, Kim TJ, Kim WY, Lee SH. Comparison of barbed suture versus traditional suture in laparoendoscopic single-site myomectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;185:99-102.
9. Based on internal test report# RE00186732, Medtronic versus Ethicon barbed suture benchtop test evaluation. January 2019.
10. V-Loc™ 90 device [instructions for use]. Medtronic.
11. V-Loc™ 180 device [instructions for use]. Medtronic.
12. V-Loc™ PBT non-absorbable device [instructions for use]. Medtronic.