Multifilament Cable Wire versus Conventional Wire for Sternal Closure in Patients Undergoing Major Cardiac Surgery.
10.5090/kjtcs.2015.48.4.265
- Author:
You Na OH
1
;
Keong Jun HA
;
Joon Bum KIM
;
Sung Ho JUNG
;
Suk Jung CHOO
;
Cheol Hyun CHUNG
;
Jae Won LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. jbkim1975@amc.seoul.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Multifilament cable wire;
Conventional wire;
Sternal closure;
Cardiovascular surgery;
Complication
- MeSH:
Hemorrhage;
Humans;
Mediastinitis;
Mortality;
Propensity Score;
Retrospective Studies;
Stainless Steel;
Steel;
Thoracic Surgery*;
Wounds and Injuries
- From:The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2015;48(4):265-271
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Stainless steel wiring remains the most popular technique for primary sternal closure. Recently, a multifilament cable wiring system (Pioneer Surgical Technology Inc., Marquette, MI, USA) was introduced for sternal closure and has gained wide acceptance due to its superior resistance to tension. We aimed to compare conventional steel wiring to multifilament cable fixation for sternal closure in patients undergoing major cardiac surgery. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively on 1,354 patients who underwent sternal closure after major cardiac surgery, using either the multifilament cable wiring system or conventional steel wires between January 2009 and October 2010. The surgical outcomes of these two groups of patients were compared using propensity score matching based on 18 baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: Propensity score matching yielded 392 pairs of patients in the two groups whose baseline profiles showed no significant differences. No significant differences between the two groups were observed in the rates of early mortality (2.0% vs. 1.3%, p=0.578), major wound complications requiring reconstruction (1.3% vs. 1.3%, p>0.99), minor wound complications (3.6% vs. 2.0%, p=0.279), or mediastinitis (0.8% vs. 1.0%, p=1.00). Patients in the multifilament cable group had fewer sternal bleeding events than those in the conventional wire group, but this tendency was not statistically significant (4.3% vs. 7.4%, p=0.068). CONCLUSION: The surgical outcomes of sternal closure using multifilament cable wires were comparable to those observed when conventional steel wires were used. Therefore, the multifilament cable wiring system may be considered a viable option for sternal closure in patients undergoing major cardiac surgery.
