Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Absorbable vs steel staples for dog knee surgery skin closure
By Watson, F C et al.·Published in Veterinary surgery : VS·2019·Fitzpatrick Referrals, United Kingdom·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: The use of absorbable staples for skin closure after tibial plateau leveling osteotomy.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs undergoing surgery to fix a knee problem (tibial plateau leveling osteotomy or TPLO) had their skin incisions closed with either stainless steel or absorbable staples. After two weeks, there was no significant difference in infection or inflammation between the two types of staples, but the stainless steel staples allowed for quicker closure of the incision. The absorbable staples worked well and did not lead to more complications, making them a good option for surgeries where removing stitches later would be difficult.
People also search for: dog knee surgery recovery · absorbable staples for dog surgery · TPLO surgery infection signs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of stainless steel staples with absorbable staples for closure of skin incisions in dogs undergoing tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Client-owned dogs (n = 80). METHODS: With client consent, dogs were randomly assigned a staple type (stainless steel or absorbable) immediately prior to closure of a TPLO skin incision. Incisions were compared for length, staple type and number, and an inflammation-infection score 2 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Overall, 18.8% of incisions were diagnosed with inflammation or infection. No difference was found between inflammation-infection scores, incision length, number of staples used, or general anesthetic time between the 2 staple groups. However, wound closure was faster with stainless steel staples (22.50 seconds; range, 11-180) by approximately 30 seconds compared with absorbable staples (56.50 seconds; range, 18-190; P < .001). Time taken to close the incision correlated negatively with the number of occasions that absorbable staples were used (P = .01). CONCLUSION: Absorbable skin staples were successfully used to close skin incisions after TPLO and were not associated with an increased level of inflammation or infection in our clinical setting. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Absorbable staples may be considered to close surgical wounds when subsequent suture removal would be impractical, without specific concerns over inflammation or infection of the wound.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30378125/