ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2014
Use of self-retaining barbed suture for rectal wall closure in transanal endoscopic microsurgery.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barbed versus traditional suture for enterotomy closure after laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis: a case-control study.Updates in surgery · 2018Article
- Use of Barbed Sutures in Bariatric Surgery. Review of the Literature.Obesity surgery · 2016Review
- Local excision by transanal endoscopic surgery.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
- Surgeons' perceptions of transanal endoscopic microsurgery using minilaparoscopic instruments in a simulator: the thinner the better.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- To clip or not to clip? Invited comment on Wilhelm et al.: use of self-retaining barbed suture for rectal wall closure in transanal endoscopic microsurgery.Techniques in coloproctology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of self-retaining barbed sutures in comparison with monofilament clip-fixated sutures for rectal wall closure in transanal endoscopic microsurgery.
methodsHorizontal full-thickness wall defects (3.5 cm) of cattle rectal specimens were closed via transanal endoscopic microsurgery using a monofilament suture with clips at the end (Surgipro(®) 2/0; Covidien, Mansfield, MA, USA, n = 25) or a self-retaining barbed suture (V-Loc™ 180 3/0; Covidien, Mansfield, MA, USA, n = 25). The primary endpoint was the pneumatic leakage pressure of the suture line. As a secondary endpoint, suture time was evaluated.
resultsThe median pneumatic leakage pressure for barbed sutures was 45.5 mbar (range 17-106 mbar) and 33.5 mbar (range 19-106 mbar) for monofilament sutures (p = 0.58). A pneumatic leak at a critical pressure below 25 mbar occurred in 3 cases with barbed sutures and in 7 cases with monofilament sutures (p = 0.29). Median suturing time [19:25 min:s (range 12:00-33:30) vs. 20:41 (17:00-28:33), p = 0.23] did not differ between the two groups.
conclusionsBarbed sutures display the same bursting pressure as monofilament sutures and their use for rectal wall closure seems feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.