ArticleChinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi2018
Effect of retension sutures on abdominal pressure after abdominal surgery.
Article in Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Successful Re-Closure with Adjunctive Retention Sutures for Fascial Dehiscence after Mesh-Mediated Fascial Traction in Open Abdomen Management for Perforated Sigmoid Diverticulitis: A Case Report.Surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Successful Management of Complicated Burst Abdomen With Open Abdomen Using Only Simple Saline Dressing.Case reports in surgery · 2025Article
- Danhong Injection Alleviates Postoperative Intra-abdominal Adhesion in a Rat Model.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effect of retention sutures on abdominal pressure and postoperative prognosis in abdominal surgery patients.
methodsThis prospective cohort study included patients who were admitted to Daping Hospital from May 15, 2014 to October 11, 2014. A total of 57 patients were enrolled, including 18 patients in the "U" type retention suture group, 17 patients in the intermittent retention suture group, and 22 patients in non-retention suture group. The demographic data, clinical data and risk factors for abdominal wound dehiscence were recorded. The bladder pressure (IVP) was monitored preoperatively, intraoperatively, and four days postoperatively. Additionally, the incidence of abdominal wound dehiscence and infection 14 days after the operation was recorded.
resultsDuring the operation, the IVP decreased and then increased; it was at its lowest 1 h after the start of the operation (5.3 mmHg ± 3.2 mmHg) and peaked after tension-reducing (8.8 mmHg ± 4.0 mmHg). The IVP values in the "U" type retention suture group and intermittent retention suture group were higher than in the non-retention suture group 4 days after operation (p < 0.005). The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores were 3.9 ± 2.2, 3.8 ± 2.0, and 3.0 ± 1.0 in the retention suture group, intermittent retention suture group and non-retention suture group, respectively. The VAS pain scores in the "U" type tension-reducing group and intermittent tension-reducing group were higher than in the non-tension-reducing group (p < 0.005).
conclusionAlthough retention sutures may reduce the incidence of postoperative wound dehiscence in abdominal surgery patients, they can increase the IVP and postoperative pain.
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.