The Endo Stitch™ automated suturing device, the V-Loc™ wound closure device, and you — a powerful team in the OR
Our V-Loc™ wound closure device uses unidirectional barbs to distribute tension across the wound and hold the wound edges together.1-3,†,‡ All without the need to tie knots.4 And when used with our Endo Stitch™ suturing device, you can take your GYN procedural technique to the next level.
Surgery is challenging enough. Let us help you make it faster and easier.
Your Partners in Simple and Secure Wound Closure
Try our Endo Stitch™ suturing device with V-Loc™ reload to see how they can enhance your laparoscopic procedures.
Fill out this form to learn more about our Endo Stitch™ device — or for a free demonstration.
Find out why our Endo Stitch™ device is the most frequently used suturing device in the world.5
Read MoreUsing V-Loc™ reloads with our Endo Stitch™ device is faster than conventional suturing options.6-10,‡,§
Read MoreThe V-Loc™ device delivers uncompromised tensile strength and improved wound healing.9,11,14,†,Ω
Read MoreLearn more about Endo Stitch™ device by visiting our website below.
visit website†As compared to conventional sutures.
‡Animal data may not correlate with human clinical outcomes.
§ Based on bench test model for simulated intracorporeal knot tying and laparoscopic suturing.
Ω Based on preclinical data; preclinical results may not correlate with clinical performance in humans.
1. Zaruby J, Gingras K, Taylor J, Maul D. An in vivo comparison of barbed suture devices and conventional monofilament sutures for cosmetic skin closure: biomechanical wound strength and histology. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31(2):232-40.
2. Ahmed O, Jilani D, Funaki B, Ginsburg M, et al. Comparison of barbed versus conventional sutures for wound closure of radiologically implanted chest ports. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25(9):1433-8.
3.Koide S, Smoll NR, Liew J, Smith K, et al. A randomized 'N-of-1' single blinded clinical trial of barbed dermal sutures vs. smooth sutures in elective plastic surgery shows differences in scar appearance two-years post- operatively. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68(7):1003-9."
4. Fouda UM, Elsetohy KA, Elshaer HS. Barbed versus conventional suture: A randomized trial for suturing the endometrioma bed after laparoscopic excision of ovarian endometrioma. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 23, 962-8; 2016.
5. Based on IMS Data. Q1 CY15-Q3 CY20.
6. Omotosho P, Yurcisin B, Ceppa E, Miller J, Kirsch D, Portenier DD. In vivo assessment of an absorbable and nonabsorbable knotless barbed suture for laparoscopic single-layer enterotomy closure: a clinical and biomechanical comparison against non-barbed suture. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2011;21(10):893-897.
7. Nguyen NT, Mayer KL, Bold RJ, et al. Laparoscopic suturing evaluation among surgical residents. J Surg Res. 2000; 93(1): 133-136.
8.Hart S, Hashemi L, Sobolewski CJ. Effect of a disposable automated suturing device on cost and operating room time in benign total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures. JSLS. 2013. 17(4):508–516.
9. Brown, S. Utilization of a porcine model to demonstrate the efficacy of an absorbable barbed suture for dermal closure. UTSW. 2009.
10. Rubin JP, Hunstad JP, Polynice A, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing absorbable barbed sutures versus conventional absorbable sutures for dermal closure in open surgical procedures. Aesthet Surg J. 2014; 34: 272-283.
11. Sato M, Matsumura H, Gondo M, Shimada K, et al. Flexor tendon repair with barbed suture: an experimental study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(8):1421-4.
12. Adams JB, Schulam PG, Moore RG, Partin AW, Kavoussi LR. New laparoscopic suturing device: initial clinical experience. Urology. 1995; 46(2):242–245.
13. Stringer NH. Laparoscopic myomectomy with the Endo Stitch™ 10 mm laparoscopic suturing device. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996; 3(2):299–303.
14. Sull A, Inceoglu S, August A, Gregorius S, et al. Comparison of Barbed Sutures in Porcine Flexor Tenorrhaphy. Hand (N Y). 2016;11(4):475-478.