200 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15479151)
21. Comparison of tensile and knot security properties of surgical sutures.
Kim JC; Lee YK; Lim BS; Rhee SH; Yang HC
J Mater Sci Mater Med; 2007 Dec; 18(12):2363-9. PubMed ID: 17569012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Quantitative evaluation of stiffness of commercial suture materials.
Chu CC; Kizil Z
Surg Gynecol Obstet; 1989 Mar; 168(3):233-8. PubMed ID: 2919353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Handling characteristics of poly(L-lactide-co-epsilon-caprolactone) monofilament suture.
Tomihata K; Suzuki M; Tomita N
Biomed Mater Eng; 2005; 15(5):381-91. PubMed ID: 16179759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Preclinical evaluation of PDS (polydioxanone) synthetic absorbable suture vs chromic surgical gut in urologic surgery.
Cohen EL; Kirschenbaum A; Glenn JF
Urology; 1987 Oct; 30(4):369-72. PubMed ID: 3116740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Some biomechanical considerations in microsutures.
Van Meter BH; Thacker JG; Rodeheaver GT; Edlich RF
Ann Plast Surg; 1994 Apr; 32(4):401-6. PubMed ID: 8210160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Wound closure sutures and needles: a new perspective.
Edlich RF; Gubler K; Wallis AG; Clark JJ; Dahlstrom JJ; Long WB
J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol; 2010; 29(4):339-61. PubMed ID: 21284597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Tensile strength and knot security of five suture materials exposed to natural summer conditions of a temperate lake.
Reid CH; Cooke SJ
J Aquat Anim Health; 2023 Sep; 35(3):143-153. PubMed ID: 36934298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparative study of knot performance and ease of manipulation of monofilament and braided sutures for arthroscopic applications.
Li X; King M; MacDonald P
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc; 2004 Sep; 12(5):448-52. PubMed ID: 15118814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Mechanical comparison of 10 suture materials before and after in vivo incubation.
Greenwald D; Shumway S; Albear P; Gottlieb L
J Surg Res; 1994 Apr; 56(4):372-7. PubMed ID: 8152233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A comparison of barbed and smooth sutures for ovine cesarean delivery.
Greenberg JA; Walden S; Hammer CM; Grazul-Bilska AT; Vonnahme KA
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2011 Jun; 113(3):215-7. PubMed ID: 21457976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Effectiveness of glycomer 631 monofilament sutures in closing musculoaponeurotic incisions.
Rodeheaver GT; Salopek LS; Green CW; Foresman PA; Suber F; Neal JG; Edlich RF
J Long Term Eff Med Implants; 1998; 8(3-4):225-31. PubMed ID: 10186968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. [Experimental study in the urinary tract of a new smooth surface absorbable synthetic monofilament (author's transl)].
Beurton D; Gonties D; Terdjman S; Abraham SH; Dana A
J Urol (Paris); 1981; 87(5):295-303. PubMed ID: 6792291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Tensile properties of synthetic, absorbable monofilament suture materials before and after incubation in phosphate-buffered saline.
Tobias KM; Kidd CE; Mulon PY; Zhu X
Vet Surg; 2020 Apr; 49(3):550-560. PubMed ID: 31599002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. A comparative study of suture materials: chromic gut and chromic gut treated with glycerin.
Stone IK; von Fraunhofer JA; Masterson BJ
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1985 Apr; 151(8):1087-93. PubMed ID: 3885745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Effect of suture materials on healing skin wounds.
Van Winkle W; Hastings JC; Barker E; Hines D; Nichols W
Surg Gynecol Obstet; 1975 Jan; 140(1):7-12. PubMed ID: 1108243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The pH dependence of monofilament sutures on hydrolytic degradation.
Tomihata K; Suzuki M; Ikada Y
J Biomed Mater Res; 2001; 58(5):511-8. PubMed ID: 11505425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Studies on the efficacy and safety of polydioxanone monofilament absorbable suture.
Lerwick E
Surg Gynecol Obstet; 1983 Jan; 156(1):51-5. PubMed ID: 6401197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Biomechanical evaluation of flexor tendon repair using barbed suture material: a comparative ex vivo study.
Zeplin PH; Zahn RK; Meffert RH; Schmidt K
J Hand Surg Am; 2011 Mar; 36(3):446-9. PubMed ID: 21371625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Popularity of suture materials among residents and faculty members of a postdoctoral periodontology program.
Maksoud M; Koo S; Barouch K; Karimbux N
J Investig Clin Dent; 2014 Feb; 5(1):45-50. PubMed ID: 23595981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Comparison of two suture materials, Dexon Plus and Maxon, in abdominal hysterectomy.
Kiilholma P; Mäkinen J; Tenho T; Pitkänen Y; Hirvonen T
Ann Chir Gynaecol Suppl; 1994; 208():47-9. PubMed ID: 8092771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
