ArticleCureus2023
A Comparison of a Small-Stitch Closure With a Standard Closure in Midline Laparotomy Incisions: A Prospective Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of the SUture BIte TEchnique on clinical outcomes after midline laparotomy closure: SUBITE-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Small-Bite Versus Large-Bite Closure for the Prevention of Incisional Hernia: A Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2026Review
- Suture Techniques and Materials for Fascial Closure of Abdominal Wall Incisions: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Midline incision provides a rapid and thorough approach to the abdominal cavity and, therefore, is widely employed in both emergency and elective procedures. However, midline laparotomy is associated with many post-operative complications like wound dehiscence, incisional hernia, fistula formation, and surgical site infection (SSI). The purpose of the study is to compare the complications that occurred post-operatively in association with the long and small bite suture techniques for midline laparotomy incisions. Methodology A prospective comparative study was carried out among 90 cases of midline laparotomies for 18 months (January 2021 to June 2022). The participants were categorized into two groups: (1) Group A, which included 45 patients, underwent small-suture abdominal fascia closure, and (2) Group B, which consisted of the remaining 45 patients, underwent large-suture abdominal midline wound closure. Patients were followed up in the hospital till the day of discharge and in the outpatient department (visit 1, within one month of surgery) for pain, wound dehiscence, and surgical site infection. Patients were called for visit 2 (six months post-surgery) and incisional hernia rates were assessed. Results On the numerical pain rating scale, the mean score was higher in Group B, that is, 4.1 than in Group A, which was 3.5. Wound dehiscence and incisional hernia rates were higher among Group B cases. The majority of SSIs were noted in Group B with statistically significant results. Conclusion Despite the lack of randomization, the results demonstrated in this study support the use of small bite sutures in comparison to long bite sutures for laparotomy closure.
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.