Display Settings:

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 144

1.

Wound healing after open appendectomies in adult patients: a prospective, randomised trial comparing two methods of wound closure.

Kotaluoto S, Pauniaho SL, Helminen M, Kuokkanen H, Rantanen T.

World J Surg. 2012 Oct;36(10):2305-10. doi: 10.1007/s00268-012-1664-3.

PMID:
22669400
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
2.

Non-absorbable interrupted versus absorbable continuous skin closure in pediatric appendectomies.

Pauniaho SL, Lahdes-Vasama T, Helminen MT, Iber T, Mäkelä E, Pajulo O.

Scand J Surg. 2010;99(3):142-6.

PMID:
21044931
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3.

Continuous absorbable intradermal sutures yield better cosmetic results than nonabsorbable interrupted sutures in open appendectomy wounds: a prospective, randomized trial.

Koskela A, Kotaluoto S, Kaartinen I, Pauniaho SL, Rantanen T, Kuokkanen H.

World J Surg. 2014 May;38(5):1044-50. doi: 10.1007/s00268-013-2396-8.

PMID:
24318410
[PubMed - in process]
4.

A randomized, controlled trial comparing long-term cosmetic outcomes of traumatic pediatric lacerations repaired with absorbable plain gut versus nonabsorbable nylon sutures.

Karounis H, Gouin S, Eisman H, Chalut D, Pelletier H, Williams B.

Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Jul;11(7):730-5.

PMID:
15231459
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5.

A prospective randomised trial of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for wound closure after fasciectomy for Dupuytren's contracture.

Howard K, Simison AJ, Morris A, Bhalaik V.

J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2009 Oct;34(5):618-20. doi: 10.1177/1753193409105728. Epub 2009 Aug 17.

PMID:
19687084
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6.

Continuous absorbable vs interrupted nonabsorbable fascial closure. A prospective, randomized comparison.

McNeil PM, Sugerman HJ.

Arch Surg. 1986 Jul;121(7):821-3.

PMID:
3013123
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7.

Comparison of various methods and materials for treatment of skin laceration by a 3-dimensional measuring technique in a pig experiment.

Zeplin PH, Schmidt K, Laske M, Ziegler UE.

Ann Plast Surg. 2007 May;58(5):566-72.

PMID:
17452845
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8.

Closure of the abdominal fascia after clean and clean-contaminated laparotomy.

Larsen PN, Nielsen K, Schultz A, Mejdahl S, Larsen T, Moesgaard F.

Acta Chir Scand. 1989 Sep;155(9):461-4.

PMID:
2531963
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9.

Role of suture material and technique of closure in wound outcome following laparotomy for peritonitis.

Agrawal V, Sharma N, Joshi MK, Minocha VR.

Trop Gastroenterol. 2009 Oct-Dec;30(4):237-40.

PMID:
20426290
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free Article
10.

Aesthetic comparison of wound closure techniques in a porcine model.

Tritle NM, Haller JR, Gray SD.

Laryngoscope. 2001 Nov;111(11 Pt 1):1949-51.

PMID:
11801975
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
11.

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing a tissue adhesive (Dermabond™) with adhesive strips (Steri-Strips™) for the closure of laparoscopic trocar wounds in children.

Romero P, Frongia G, Wingerter S, Holland-Cunz S.

Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2011 May;21(3):159-62. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1270458. Epub 2011 Jan 31.

PMID:
21283958
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
12.

Meta-analysis of techniques for closure of midline abdominal incisions.

van 't Riet M, Steyerberg EW, Nellensteyn J, Bonjer HJ, Jeekel J.

Br J Surg. 2002 Nov;89(11):1350-6.

PMID:
12390373
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
13.

Incisional hernia after abdominal closure with slowly absorbable versus fast absorbable, antibacterial-coated sutures.

Justinger C, Slotta JE, Schilling MK.

Surgery. 2012 Mar;151(3):398-403. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2011.08.004. Epub 2011 Nov 16.

PMID:
22088813
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
14.

Layer closure of laparotomy wounds with absorbable and non-absorbable suture materials.

Irvin TT, Koffman CG, Duthie HL.

Br J Surg. 1976 Oct;63(10):793-6.

PMID:
791437
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
15.

Monofilament versus multifilament absorbable sutures for abdominal closure.

Sahlin S, Ahlberg J, Granström L, Ljungström KG.

Br J Surg. 1993 Mar;80(3):322-4.

PMID:
8472140
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
16.

Skin closure in vascular neurosurgery: A prospective study on absorbable intradermal suture versus nonabsorbable suture.

Pereira JL, Vieira G Jr, de Albuquerque LA, Mendes Gde A, Salles LR, de Souza AF, Dellaretti M, de Sousa AA.

Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3:94. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.99941. Epub 2012 Aug 21.

PMID:
23050208
[PubMed]
Free PMC Article
17.

Surgical site infections after abdominal closure in colorectal surgery using triclosan-coated absorbable suture (PDS Plus) vs. uncoated sutures (PDS II): a randomized multicenter study.

Baracs J, Huszár O, Sajjadi SG, Horváth OP.

Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2011 Dec;12(6):483-9. doi: 10.1089/sur.2011.001. Epub 2011 Dec 5.

PMID:
22142314
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
18.

Adhesive bonds or percutaneous absorbable suture for closure of surgical wounds in children. Results of a prospective randomized trial.

van den Ende ED, Vriens PW, Allema JH, Breslau PJ.

J Pediatr Surg. 2004 Aug;39(8):1249-51.

PMID:
15300538
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
19.

Antiseptic wick: does it reduce the incidence of wound infection following appendectomy?

McGreal GT, Joy A, Manning B, Kelly JL, O'Donnell JA, Kirwan WW, Redmond HP.

World J Surg. 2002 May;26(5):631-4. Epub 2002 Mar 18.

PMID:
12098059
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
20.

Antibacterial [corrected] coating of abdominal closure sutures and wound infection.

Justinger C, Moussavian MR, Schlueter C, Kopp B, Kollmar O, Schilling MK.

Surgery. 2009 Mar;145(3):330-4. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2008.11.007. Epub 2009 Jan 25. Erratum in: Surgery. 2009 Sep;146(3):468.

PMID:
19231586
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Display Settings:

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk