Biocompatible Cable Ties Are an Alternative to Metal Stabilizers for Bar Securement During Minimally Invasive Pectus Excavatum Repair.

Swathi R. Raikot, Stephanie F Polites, D. D. Potter
{"title":"Biocompatible Cable Ties Are an Alternative to Metal Stabilizers for Bar Securement During Minimally Invasive Pectus Excavatum Repair.","authors":"Swathi R. Raikot, Stephanie F Polites, D. D. Potter","doi":"10.1089/lap.2023.0417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Bar stabilization during minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair (MIRPE) is critical to avoid dislodgement. Multiple techniques are described including stabilizers, wires, and sutures. This retrospective study compared bar movement and outcomes between existing techniques and ZipFix™, a biocompatible cable tie. Methods: Patients ≤20 years of age who underwent MIRPE with ZipFix between January 2021 and September 2022 were compared with historical controls who underwent repair by same surgeons between January 2018 and December 2020 using stabilizers or polydioxanone suture (PDS). Demographics, clinical details, and outcomes were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests. Results: Of the 116 patients who underwent repair, 45 had bars secured with ZipFix (39%) and 71 (61%) were historical controls (35 stabilizer, 36 PDS). Median (interquartile range) age was 15 (14-16) years and Haller index was 3.9 (3.6-4.5). Nine (8%) patients required two bars. Haller index and use of second bar were comparable between stabilization techniques (P > .05). In total, 49 patients (40%) reported any pain at 1 month and this was similar between stabilization techniques (P = .45). Median bar movement was greater for bars secured with PDS than with ZipFix or stabilizers at 1 month (5.5 versus 2.3 versus 3.3°, P = .010) and last follow-up (6.5 versus 2.1 versus 3.6°, P < .001). One patient whose bar was secured with PDS required revision for dislodgement. Conclusion: Pectus bar stabilization with ZipFix is a safe alternative to metal stabilizers and both techniques are superior to suture stabilization alone. The use of ZipFix may be preferred given its lower cost and ease of use.","PeriodicalId":508448,"journal":{"name":"Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A","volume":" 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2023.0417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Bar stabilization during minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair (MIRPE) is critical to avoid dislodgement. Multiple techniques are described including stabilizers, wires, and sutures. This retrospective study compared bar movement and outcomes between existing techniques and ZipFix™, a biocompatible cable tie. Methods: Patients ≤20 years of age who underwent MIRPE with ZipFix between January 2021 and September 2022 were compared with historical controls who underwent repair by same surgeons between January 2018 and December 2020 using stabilizers or polydioxanone suture (PDS). Demographics, clinical details, and outcomes were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests. Results: Of the 116 patients who underwent repair, 45 had bars secured with ZipFix (39%) and 71 (61%) were historical controls (35 stabilizer, 36 PDS). Median (interquartile range) age was 15 (14-16) years and Haller index was 3.9 (3.6-4.5). Nine (8%) patients required two bars. Haller index and use of second bar were comparable between stabilization techniques (P > .05). In total, 49 patients (40%) reported any pain at 1 month and this was similar between stabilization techniques (P = .45). Median bar movement was greater for bars secured with PDS than with ZipFix or stabilizers at 1 month (5.5 versus 2.3 versus 3.3°, P = .010) and last follow-up (6.5 versus 2.1 versus 3.6°, P < .001). One patient whose bar was secured with PDS required revision for dislodgement. Conclusion: Pectus bar stabilization with ZipFix is a safe alternative to metal stabilizers and both techniques are superior to suture stabilization alone. The use of ZipFix may be preferred given its lower cost and ease of use.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生物相容性电缆扎带可替代金属稳定器,用于微创乳突修补术中的横杆固定。
背景:微创胸廓修复术(MIRPE)中的横杠稳定对于避免脱位至关重要。目前有多种技术,包括稳定器、钢丝和缝线。这项回顾性研究比较了现有技术和生物相容性电缆扎带 ZipFix™ 之间的横杆移动情况和结果。研究方法将 2021 年 1 月至 2022 年 9 月期间使用 ZipFix 接受 MIRPE 的 20 岁以下患者与 2018 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月期间由同一外科医生使用稳定器或聚二氧丙酮缝合线 (PDS) 进行修复的历史对照组进行比较。采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验和卡方检验对人口统计学、临床细节和结果进行了比较。结果在接受修复的 116 名患者中,45 人(39%)使用 ZipFix 固定肛门窦,71 人(61%)为历史对照组(35 人使用稳定剂,36 人使用 PDS)。年龄中位数(四分位数间距)为 15(14-16)岁,哈勒指数为 3.9(3.6-4.5)。九名(8%)患者需要使用两根横杠。不同稳定技术的霍勒指数和第二根横杠的使用情况相当(P > .05)。共有 49 名患者(40%)在 1 个月时报告有疼痛感,不同稳定技术的疼痛感相似(P = .45)。在 1 个月时(5.5 对 2.3 对 3.3°,P = .010)和最后一次随访时(6.5 对 2.1 对 3.6°,P < .001),使用 PDS 固定的横梁移动中位数大于使用 ZipFix 或稳定器固定的横梁移动中位数。一名使用 PDS 固定横梁的患者因脱位而需要进行翻修。结论:用 ZipFix 固定栉骨横杆是金属稳定器的安全替代品,两种技术都优于单纯缝合稳定。由于 ZipFix 的成本较低且易于使用,因此可能会成为首选。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Don't Fear the Bleed: Assessing Postoperative Bleeding Incidence After Instituting a Standardized Prophylactic Heparin Protocol in Bariatric Patients. Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Is a Safe and Feasible Technique for Mediastinal Parathyroid Lesions. We Reduced the Incidence of Postoperative Complications in Neonatal Ostomy Patients by Using Simple Devices. Is 3D Volumetric Evaluation Consistent with Postoperative Renal Parenchymal Preservation in Open and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy? Biocompatible Cable Ties Are an Alternative to Metal Stabilizers for Bar Securement During Minimally Invasive Pectus Excavatum Repair.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1