ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025
A literature-based cost-effectiveness analysis of device-assisted suturing versus needle-driven suturing during laparotomy closure.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 5-year clinical outcome of the ESTOIH trial comparing the short-bite versus large-bite technique for elective midline abdominal closure.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSmall-bites suturing technique for laparotomy closure is now recommended as the standard of care. However, uptake of the practice remains slow. A medical technology called the SutureTOOL has been developed which can facilitate implementation of small-bites. The aim of the study was to compare the economic and clinical outcomes of laparotomy closure for patients using manual needle-driver suturing versus device-assisted suturing (SutureTOOL) following open abdominal surgery.
methodsThis cost-effectiveness analysis comparing device-assisted suturing to needle-driver suturing was performed from a healthcare perspective within Sweden, France, the UK, and the US. A decision tree model was developed to implement the analysis.
resultsThe SutureTOOL was found to be cost-effective, reducing costs between 22% and 40% across country contexts. Savings were associated with reduced post-operative complications and reductions in operating room time. Improvements in quality of life were minimal and not clinically significant, likely because of the short time horizon.
conclusionCost-effectiveness was largely due to cost savings. Prior to procurement, hospitals should test the device to ensure that small-bite rates and reductions in operation time are replicable within their clinical context. If so, the device will improve quality of care for laparotomy wound 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.