Methods: This multi-centre, international, single-arm, prospective observational study aimed at demonstrating the non-inferiority of a mid-term absorbable monofilament in comparison to braided sutures in gastrointestinal anastomosis. Monosyn suture was used to create the gastrointestinal anastomosis and the frequency of anastomotic leakage until day of discharge was chosen as the primary parameter. The outcome was compared to the results published for braided sutures in the literature. Secondary parameters were the time to perform the anastomosis, length of hospital stay, costs, and postoperative complications.
Results: The anastomosis leakage rate was 2.91%, indicating that Monosyn suture was not inferior to braided sutures used in gastrointestinal anastomosis. Of the reported anastomotic suture techniques, the single layer continuous method was the fastest and most economical technique in the present observational study.
Conclusion: Monosyn suture is safe and effective in gastrointestinal anastomosis and represents a good alternative to other sutures used for gastrointestinal anastomosis. With regard to safety, time and cost-efficiency, the single-layer continuous technique should be considered a preferred method. The transfer of results from clinical studies into daily practice with regard to surgical techniques for gastrointestinal anastomosis should be further evaluated in larger studies or in nationwide registries.
PURPOSE: To compare patients' and parents' perceptions of physical attributes (PAs) of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients and to report any correlations between their perceptions and Scoliosis Research Society-22r (SRS-22r) scores.
OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Few studies have looked into the differences between patients' and parents' perceptions of their appearance.
METHODS: AIS patient-parent pairs (n=170) were recruited. The patients' and parents' perceptions of six PAs were evaluated: waist asymmetry (WA), rib hump (RH), shoulder asymmetry (SA), neck tilt, breast asymmetry (BrA), and chest prominence. These PAs were ranked, and an aggregate PA (Agg-PA) score was derived from a score assigned to the attribute (6 for the most important PA and 1 for the least important). The patients also completed the SRS-22r questionnaire.
RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (58.2%) and 71 patients (41.8%) had thoracic and lumbar major curves, respectively. WA was ranked first by 54 patients (31.8%) and 50 parents (29.4%), whereas RH was ranked first by 50 patients (29.4%) and 38 parents (22.4%). The overall Agg-PA scores were similar for patients and parents (p>0.05). However, for thoracic major curves (TMCs) >40°, a significant difference was noted between the Agg-PA scores of patients and parents for SA (3.5±1.6 vs. 4.2±1.6, p=0.041) and BrA (3.0±1.6 vs. 2.2±1.3, p=0.006). For TMCs <40°, a significant difference was found between the Agg-PA scores of patients and parents for WA (3.7±1.6 vs. 4.4±1.5, p=0.050). BrA was negatively correlated with total SRS-22r score.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between patients and parents in their ranking of the most important PAs. For TMCs >40°, there were significant differences in the Agg-PA for SA and BrA. Pa¬tients were more concerned about BrA and parents were more concerned about SA. Patients' perception of the six PAs had weak correlation with SRS-22r scores.