The goal is not to "win" an argument, but to advance the collective understanding of barbed suture technology and ensure that clinical decisions are based on the strongest available evidence. This approach maintains professional respect while being assertive about V-Loc's innovation and safety profile.
✓ Be Collaborative
Position yourself as an ally in pursuit of patient safety, not an adversary
✓ Be Data-Driven
Let the evidence speak; cite specific numbers and study populations
✓ Be Respectful
Validate concerns and institutional experience while presenting new evidence
Core Communication Principles
Always start by validating the concern or perspective being raised. This demonstrates respect and prevents defensive reactions.
Example: "That's a thoughtful consideration about perfusion. The clinical data actually supports..."
Provide specific numbers, study populations, and methodologies. This prevents the discussion from becoming abstract or philosophical.
Example: "The meta-analysis of 4,452 patients showed a 73% reduction in infections (RR 0.26)..."
Many concerns (perfusion, bowel injury) are actually technique-dependent. Frame this as a shared responsibility for proper training.
Example: "Bowel safety depends on proper intracorporeal knot placement—which your institution clearly emphasizes..."
Identify shared values (patient safety, surgical efficiency, evidence-based practice) and position yourself as working toward the same goals.
Example: "We both want optimal tissue perfusion. Here's what the data shows about how V-Loc achieves that..."
Acknowledge that institutions have legitimate reasons for their preferences. Your goal is to inform, not to force change.
Example: "I respect IRCAD's preference for bidirectional design. The evidence also shows that V-Loc..."
Don't just present data; suggest how it might inform future decisions or training. This positions you as constructive.
Example: "Perhaps we could explore V-Loc in a pilot program to compare outcomes with your current approach..."
Specific Response Strategies
General Guidelines for Difficult Conversations
1. Know Your Data
Have specific numbers, study sizes, and publication details at hand. Vague references undermine credibility.
2. Anticipate Objections
Think through what the other person might say and prepare thoughtful responses.
3. Identify Common Ground
Find shared values or goals that can serve as a foundation for discussion.
4. Choose the Right Setting
Private conversations are better for challenging discussions than public forums.
1. Listen Actively
Let them fully express their concerns before responding. This builds rapport and shows respect.
2. Validate Before Correcting
Acknowledge the validity of their concern before presenting alternative evidence.
3. Use "We" Language
Position yourself as part of the same professional community with shared goals.
4. Stay Calm and Professional
Maintain a respectful tone even if the other person becomes defensive or dismissive.
1. Summarize Agreement
Recap any points of agreement or understanding reached during the discussion.
2. Offer Resources
Provide access to the evidence (links, papers) so they can review independently.
3. Respect Their Decision
If they choose not to adopt V-Loc, accept their decision professionally.
4. Leave the Door Open
Suggest future collaboration or pilot programs that might allow them to evaluate V-Loc safely.
✗ Don't Be Dismissive
Avoid phrases like "you're wrong" or "that's not what the evidence shows."
✗ Don't Question Their Expertise
Even if you disagree, maintain respect for their clinical experience and judgment.
✗ Don't Make It Personal
Keep the discussion focused on evidence and clinical outcomes, not personalities.
✗ Don't Expect Immediate Change
Institutional preferences take time to shift. Plant seeds; don't demand adoption.
Real-World Scenario Examples
Their Comment:
"V-Loc is too risky. I've seen complications with those sharp barbs."
Your Response:
"I appreciate you raising that concern—safety is paramount. The clinical evidence from 4,452 patients across 25 studies actually shows zero bowel complications and a 73% reduction in infections. That said, proper technique is critical with any suture. I'd be interested in learning more about the complications you've observed—were they related to technique, or do you think they're device-specific?"
Why This Works:
- • Validates their concern
- • Provides specific data
- • Separates device from technique
- • Invites dialogue rather than debate
Their Comment:
"I just don't trust V-Loc. The barbs constrict tissue too much. I prefer Stratafix."
Your Response:
"I respect your preference for Stratafix—you have experience with it. I was actually surprised by some recent data on V-Loc. A meta-analysis of 4,452 patients showed that V-Loc actually reduced surgical site infections by 73% compared to conventional sutures. If the barbs were constricting tissue too much, we'd expect higher infection rates, not lower. Have you seen different outcomes in your practice? I'd love to understand your experience better."
Why This Works:
- • Validates their preference
- • Frames data as surprising (not confrontational)
- • Uses infection rates as proof of perfusion
- • Invites them to share their experience
Their Position:
"Our institution has decided to use only Stratafix and Quill. V-Loc is not approved for our surgical program."
Your Response:
"I understand and respect your institutional decision. I wanted to share some recent evidence that might be worth considering for future review. A 2024 meta-analysis of 4,452 patients shows V-Loc has an excellent safety profile with reduced infections and no bowel complications. I'm not suggesting you change your policy immediately, but perhaps we could explore a small pilot program where interested surgeons could evaluate V-Loc alongside your current devices? This would allow you to gather institutional data while maintaining your current approach. Would that be something worth discussing?"
Why This Works:
- • Respects institutional autonomy
- • Provides evidence without demanding change
- • Offers a low-risk path forward (pilot program)
- • Positions you as collaborative, not confrontational
Final Thoughts
The goal of this guide is to help you engage in productive, professional conversations about barbed suture technology. Remember that your colleagues at IRCAD and elsewhere are motivated by the same goal you are: providing the best possible care for their patients. Disagreements about device selection are normal and healthy in medicine.
By approaching these conversations with respect, data, and a genuine commitment to understanding different perspectives, you can advance the field while maintaining professional relationships. You don't need to convince everyone to adopt V-Loc— you just need to ensure that the decision is made based on the strongest available evidence rather than outdated assumptions or incomplete information.
Remember: Being assertive about V-Loc's innovation doesn't mean being aggressive about it. Let the data speak for itself, and trust that your colleagues will recognize the value of evidence-based practice.