Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:12:13.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of different suture materials in the nasal cavity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2016

A Durmaz ,
A Kilic ,
R Gumral ,
U Yildizoglu  and
B Polat
A Durmaz*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey
A Kilic
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey
R Gumral
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey
U Yildizoglu
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey
B Polat
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Abdullah Durmaz, Department of Otolaryngology, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, Etlik, Ankara 06010, Turkey Fax: +90 312 304 57 00 E-mail: adurmaz@gata.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To investigate the effects of different suture materials in the nasal cavity on encrustation and micro-organism colonisation.

Methods:

Four different suture materials were used to suture the nasal septum. The effects of suture materials on intranasal encrustation were evaluated with anterior rhinoscopy. The sutures were removed and evaluated in terms of micro-organism colonisation on the 7th and 21st post-operative days.

Results:

Monofilament sutures were found to cause less encrustation and micro-organism colonisation. There was increased late-stage encrustation if an absorbable monofilament suture remained in place for a long time. The removal of a non-absorbable monofilament suture in the early or late post-operative period made no difference in terms of micro-organism growth on the suture.

Conclusion:

The material and physical characteristics of sutures placed inside the nose may indirectly affect the healing process. It may be more appropriate to use different materials depending on the length of time the suture is to remain in place.

Keywords

SuturesNasal CavityWound Healing
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 130 , Issue 4 , April 2016 , pp. 352 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Dobratz, EJ, Park, SS. Septoplasty pearls. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2009;42:527–37CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Certal, V, Silva, H, Santos, T, Correia, A, Carvalho, C. Trans-septal suturing technique in septoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rhinology 2012;50:236–45Google Scholar
3Bhalla, RK, Kaushik, V, de Carpentier, J. Conchopexy suture to prevent middle turbinate lateralisation and septal haematoma after endoscopic sinus surgery. Rhinology 2005;43:143–5Google ScholarPubMed
4Hari, C, Marnane, C, Wormald, PJ. Quilting sutures for nasal septum. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122:522–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Hockstein, NG, Bales, CB, Palmer, JN. Transseptal suture to secure middle meatal spacers. Ear Nose Throat J 2006;85:47–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Hussey, M, Bagg, M. Principles of wound closure. Oper Tech Sports Med 2011;19:206–11Google Scholar
7Gabrielli, F, Potenza, C, Puddu, P, Sera, F, Masini, C, Abeni, D. Suture materials and other factors associated with tissue reactivity, infection, and wound dehiscence among plastic surgery outpatients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;107:38–45Google Scholar
8Banche, G, Roana, J, Mandras, N, Amasio, M, Gallesio, C, Allizond, V et al. Microbial adherence on various intraoral suture materials in patients undergoing dental surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:1503–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Edmiston, CE Jr, Krepel, CJ, Marks, RM, Rossi, PJ, Sanger, J, Goldblatt, M et al. Microbiology of explanted suture segments from infected and noninfected surgical patients. J Clin Microbiol 2013;51:417–21Google Scholar
10Research Randomizer. In: http://www.randomizer.org [17 January 2016]Google Scholar
11Reiter, D. Methods and materials for wound closure. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1995;28:1069–80Google Scholar
12Grigg, TR, Liewehr, FR, Patton, WR, Buxton, TB, McPherson, JC. Effect of the wicking behaviour of multifilament sutures. J Endod 2004;30:649–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Otten, JE, Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad, M, Jahnke, H, Pelz, K. Bacterial colonization on different suture materials. A potential risk for intraoral dentoalveolar surgery. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005;74:627–35Google Scholar
14Masini, BD, Stinner, DJ, Waterman, SM, Wenke, JC. Bacterial adherence to suture materials. J Surg Educ 2011;68:101–4Google Scholar