ArticleBMC surgery2021
Needle Adjustment Free (NAF) running suture technique (PAN suture) in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.
Article in BMC surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is proposed a new running suture technique called Needle Adjustment Free (NAF) technique, or PAN suture. The efficiency and the safety were evaluated in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.
methodsThis new running suture technique avoids the Needle Adjustment method used in traditional techniques. The new continuous suture technique (11 patients) was compared with the traditional continuous suture method (33 patients) used in both transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) in terms of suture time (ST), warm ischemia time (WIT), blood loss (BL), open conversion rate and post-op discharge time, post-op bleeding, post-op DVT, ΔGFR (affected side, 3 months post-op). Differences were considered significant when P < 0.05.
resultsST in the PAN suture group was 30.37 ± 16.39 min, which was significant shorter (P = 0.0011) than in the traditional technique group which was 13.68 ± 3.33 min. WIT in the traditional technique group was 28.73 ± 7.89 min, while in the PAN suture group was 20.64 ± 5.04 min, P = 0.0028. The BL in entirety in the traditional technique group was 141.56 ± 155.23 mL, and in the PAN suture group was 43.18 ± 31.17 mL (P = 0.0017). BL in patients without massive bleeding in the traditional technique group was significantly greater than in the PAN suture group at 101.03 ± 68.73 mL versus 43.18 ± 31.17 mL (P = 0.0008). The open conversion rate was 0 % in both groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups in postoperative discharge time, post-op bleeding, post-op DVT, ΔGFR (affected side, 3 months post-op).
conclusionsThe NAF running suture technique, or PAN suture, leading to less ST, WIT and BL, which was shown to be more effective and safer than the traditional technique used for LPN. A further expanded research with larger sample size is needed.
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.