| pubmed-article:8977780 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0007389 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0849355 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0183733 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:dateCreated | 1997-1-10 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:abstractText | A major disadvantage of nylon sutures is the need to remove them post-operatively to prevent suture fracture and irritation. Mersilene (polyester) sutures do not hydrolyse or disintegrate and are in theory superior to nylon. Fifty-two consecutive patients were examined an average of 3 years after uncomplicated extracapsular cataract extraction with corneal sections sutured with interrupted 11/0 polyester. It was found that 29% had suture-related problems and required, or had previously undergone, suture removal for reasons other than high astigmatism. The most common problem was a loose stitch with adherent mucus and corneal vascularisation (17% of patients at review). Sixty-six per cent of patients with loose sutures reported discomfort. We would not advocate prophylactic removal, but patients with polyester sutures should be advised to return if they become symptomatic. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:commentsCorrections | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:citationSubset | IM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:issn | 0950-222X | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:MooreVV | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:CasswellA GAG | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:HollickE JEJ | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:issnType | Print | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:volume | 10 ( Pt 5) | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:pagination | 555-7 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:dateRevised | 2009-11-3 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8977780-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8977780-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8977780-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8977780-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8977780-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8977780-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8977780-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8977780-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8977780-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:year | 1996 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:articleTitle | Do Mersilene sutures need to be removed after cataract surgery? | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:affiliation | Sussex Eye Hospital, Brighton, UK. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8977780 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8977780 | lld:pubmed |
