ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparison of barbed suture and conventional suture in laparoendoscopic single-site myomectomy.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Barbed Double-Needle Suture for Cesarean Section Uterine Incision Closure: Postoperative Pain and 12-Month Scar Outcomes.Journal of pain research · 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
Objective: To compare surgical outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site myomectomy (LESS-M) for uterine myomas using barbed suture versus conventional suture. Methods: Data were collected from all women with uterine myomas who underwent LESS-M at three institutions. Patients were managed by LESS-M with either barbed suture or conventional suture. Results: Operative time was significantly lower in the barbed suture group in comparison with the conventional suture group (65.4 ± 10.7 min vs. 78.02 ± 14.2 min, P = 0.000). Similarly, the amount of blood loss was lower in the barbed suture group than in the conventional suture group (158.1 ± 85.2 mL versus 209.6 ± 85.9, P = 0.000). Accordingly, the change in hemoglobin levels in the barbed suture group was lower than in the conventional suture group (16.6 ± 5.9 g/L versus 21.0 ± 4.8, P = 0.000). Conversely, there were no statistically significant differences for blood transfusion, the postoperative pain VAS score assessed at 24 hours, length of hospital stay, conversion, and perioperative complication rates between the two groups ( Conclusion: The use of barbed suture may reduce operative time, blood loss, and hemoglobin change during LESS-M, which may be an optimal and efficient alternative to conventional suture.
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.