ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2024
Strength of small-bites abdominal wall closure using different suturing methods and materials in an experimental animal model.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barbed continuous suture reduces the risk of specimen extraction site hernia in high-risk obese patients: a CT-based analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A traction suture for abdominal wall closure in large incisional hernias: a prospective analysis of the "suitcase technique" - a simple horizontal offloading z-suture for gradual myofascial approximation.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUsing small instead of large bites for laparotomy closure results in lower incidence of incisional hernia, but no consensus exists on which suture material to use. This study aimed to compare five different closure strategies in a standardized experimental setting.
methodsFifty porcine abdominal walls were arranged into 5 groups: (A) running 2/0 polydioxanone; (B) interlocking 2/0 polydioxanone; (C) running size 0 barbed polydioxanone; (D) running size 0 barbed glycolic acid and trimethylene carbonate; (E) running size 0 suturable polypropylene mesh. The small-bites technique was used for linea alba closure in all. The abdominal walls were divided into a supra- and infra-umbilical half, resulting in 20 specimens per group that were pulled apart in a tensile testing machine. Maximum tensile force and types of suture failure were registered.
resultsThe highest tensile force was measured when using barbed polydioxanone (334.8 N ± 157.0), but differences did not reach statistical significance. Infra-umbilical abdominal walls endured a significantly higher maximum tensile force compared to supra-umbilical (397 N vs 271 N, p < 0.001). Barbed glycolic acid and trimethylene carbonate failed significantly more often (25% vs 0%, p = 0.008).
conclusionBased on tensile force, both interlocking and running suture techniques using polydioxanone, and running sutures using barbed polydioxanone or suturable mesh, seem to be suitable for abdominal wall closure. Tensile strength was significantly higher in infra-umbilical abdominal walls compared to supra-umbilical. Barbed glycolic acid and trimethylene carbonate should probably be discouraged for fascial closure, because of increased risk of suture failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38212505What 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.