The Endo Stitch™ suturing device, the V-Loc™ wound closure device, and you —
a powerful team in the OR
Our Endo Stitch™ suturing device has an adjustable jaw that accommodates a wide variety of tissue depths.7Even more efficiency when partnered with our revolutionary knotless V-Loc™ would closure device.1,§ And together, they can save you time and money — without compromising strength or security.1-6,8,9, †, ‡, §
Surgery is challenging enough. Let us help you make it more efficient. 1-6,8,9, †, ‡, §
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 the form below to learn more and to try our Endo Stitch™ device today.
Find out why our Endo Stitch™ device is the most frequently used suturing device in the world.8
Read MoreUsing V-Loc™ reloads with our Endo Stitch™ device is faster and designed for better handling than conventional suturing options.1,3,4,9,10, †, ‡
Read MoreOur knotless V-Loc™ suture closes wounds securely without the need to tie knots.11, †
Read MoreLearn more about Endo Stitch™ device by visiting our website below.
visit website† As compared to conventional suturing.
‡ Based on bench test model for simulated intracorporeal knot tying and laparoscopic suturing.
§ Animal data is not necessarily indicative of human clinical outcomes.
1. 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 nonbarbed suture. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2011;21(10):893-897.
2. Adams JB, Schulam PG, Moore RG, Partin AW, Kavoussi LR. New laparoscopic suturing device: initial clinical experience. Urology. 1995; 46(2):242-245.
3. Stringer NH. Laparoscopic myomectomy with the Endo Stitch™ 10 mm laparoscopic suturing device. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996; 3(2):299-303.
4. Nguyen NT, Mayer KL, Bold RJ, et al. Laparoscopic suturing evaluation among surgical residents. J Surg Res. 2000; 93(1): 133-136.
5. Pattaras JG, Smith GS, Landman L, Moore RG. Comparison and analysis of laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing devices: preliminary results. J Endourol. 2001;15(2):187-192.
6. 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.
7. Based on internal report, Endo Stitch™ Parameter Comparison, August 23, 2016
8. Based on Based on IMS Data. Q1 CY15-Q3 CY20.
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. 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.
© 2021 Medtronic. All rights reserved. Medtronic, Medtronic logo and Further, Together are trademarks of Medtronic. All other brands are trademarks of a Medtronic company. 03/2021 – US-AI-2000024