Trial reportBioMed research international2016
Feasibility and Safety of Absorbable Knotless Wound Closure Device in Laparoscopic Myomectomy.
Trial report in BioMed research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of efficacy of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic treatment for uterine leiomyoma: a latest meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Surgical benefits of bidirectional knotless barbed sutures over conventional sutures for uterine repair during cesarean section-A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
- An analysis of the surgical outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site myomectomy and multi-port laparoscopic myomectomy.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- The Effect on Performance Time and Quality of the Knots after Mono or Bimanual Training of Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Knot Tying according to the Gladiator Rule Technique.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose. Myomectomy has been performed through laparoscopy. Suturing is known as rate-limiting step in laparoscopic myomectomy. The present study was aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes of absorbable knotless wound closure device with the results of conventional suturing. Methods. This prospective study included 62 women who underwent laparoscopic myomectomy at Taipei City Hospital, Zhongxiao Branch, from January 2010 through to August 2012. The patients were randomized into two groups according to suturing materials, the knotless group and the 2-0 Vicryl suture group. Patient demographics, overall operative time, and intraoperative blood loss were compared between two groups. Results. Demographic characteristics and laboratory variables before surgery were comparable. Operative time was significantly shorter in knotless group compared with that in 2-0 Vicryl suture group (112 ± 47 versus 147 ± 63 minutes; p < 0.05). The results revealed a significant difference in intraoperative blood loss between two groups (knotless versus 2-0 Vicryl: 112.8 ± 54.2 versus 143.6 ± 64.9). Use of absorbable knotless wound closure device was associated with greater hemostasis compared with that of 2-0 Vicryl. During a 2-year follow-up period, 12 patients (46.2%) from the group with absorbable knotless wound closure device and 14 patients (38.9%) from 2-0 Vicryl suture group became pregnant. Conclusion. Closure of myometrium using absorbable knotless wound closure device after laparoscopic myomectomy resulted in a shorter operative time and less blood loss.
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.