V-Loc™ 90 absorbable wound closure devices are indicated for soft tissue approximation where use of an absorbable suture is appropriate.
WARNING: Do not tie knots. Tying knots may damage the barbs and potentially reduce their effectiveness.
ADVERSE EFFECT: Adverse effects associated with the use of this product are: wound dehiscence; failure to provide adequate wound support in sites where expansion, stretching or distention occur; failure to provide adequate wound support in patients with conditions which may delay wound healing; tissue granulation or fibrosis; wound suppuration and bleeding, as well as sinus formation; localized irritation when skin sutures are left in place for 7 or more days; calculi formation when prolonged contact with salt solutions occurs; enhanced bacterial infectivity; minimal acute inflammatory reaction; and pain, edema, and erythema at the wound site.
CONTRAINDICATION: The use of the V-Loc™ 90 absorbable wound closure device is contraindicated in patients with known sensitivities or allergies to its components. The V-Loc™ 90 absorbable wound closure device is not for use where prolonged (beyond 2 weeks) approximation of tissues under stress is required or for fixation of permanent cardiovascular prostheses or synthetic grafts. V-Loc™ 90 absorbable wound closure device should not be used for interrupted suture patterns. V-Loc™ 90 absorbable wound closure device is not intended to be used by tying surgical knots. V-Loc™ 90 absorbable wound closure device should not be used for ligating vessels or luminal structures.
V-Loc™ device launched in 2009.
†As compared to conventional sutures.
‡As compared to Quill™*/STRATAFIX™*.
§Based on preclinical data; preclinical results may not correlate with clinical performance in humans.
ΩAnimal data may not correlate with human clinical outcomes.
††Based on bench top testing.
References
1. Alessandri F, Evangelisti G, Centurioni MG, Gustavino C, Ferrero S, Barra F. Fishbone double‐layer barbed suture in cesarean section: a help in preventing long‐term obstetric sequelae? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;304(3):573–576. doi:10.1007/s00404‐021‐06121‐8.
2. Alessandri, F, Ferrero, S, Altieri, M, Evangelisti, G, Centurioni, MG, and Barra, F. Incidence and ultrasonographic characteristics of cesarean scar niches after uterine closure by double‐layer barbed suture: a prospective comparative study. Fertility and Sterility. 2020;114(3), e54.
3. Roberge S, Demers S, Girard M, et al. Impact of uterine closure on residual myometrial thickness after cesarean: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(4):507.e1507.e6.doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.916.
4. 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):232–240.
5. Fouda, UM, Elsetohy, KA and Elshaer, HS. 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): 962–968.
6. Angioli R, Plotti F, Montera R, et al. A new type of absorbable barbed suture for use in laparoscopic myomectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;117(3):220-223. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.12.023.
7. Sato M, Matsumura H, Gondo M, Shimada K, et al. Flexor tendon repair with barbed suture: an experimental study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(8):1421–1424.
8. Sull A, Inceoglu S, August A, Gregorius S, et al. Comparison of barbed sutures in porcine flexor tenorrhaphy. Hand (NY). 2016;11(4):475–478.
9. Brown, S. Utilization of a porcine model to demonstrate the efficacy of an absorbable barbed suture for dermal closure, UTSW, June 2009.
10. Based on internal test report #RE00186732, Medtronic versus Ethicon barbed suture benchtop test evaluation. January 2019.
11. 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.
