ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
A Biomechanical Analysis of Barbed and Monofilament Suture in an Ex Vivo Skin Closure Model.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies propose that barbed suture may have equivalent tensile strength and reduced suturing time compared to traditional suture materials, but this has not been tested in skin closure using tissue from living human donors.
methodsTwenty-four 5 cm by 2.5 cm samples were cut from twelve skin and subcutaneous tissue specimens that were obtained from abdominal wall procedures. Each sample was sectioned in half, and the skin was then closed using one of two techniques: knotless (running subcuticular with 3-0 barbed suture and skin glue) or layered closure (deep dermal sutures with 3-0 poliglecaprone, running subcuticular with 4-0 poliglecaprone and skin glue). Closure time and load to failure were recorded and compared using t-tests.
resultsMean closure time was significantly shorter for the knotless technique (2.2 ± 0.6 minutes) compared to layered closure (5.6 ± 0.5 minutes). Regarding tensile strength, mean load to failure for the knotless closure (46.5 ± 22.2 N) was significantly lower than the layered closure (79.3 ± 39.1 N). All techniques failed due to suture rupture.
conclusionsKnotless closures significantly reduced closure time but were weaker than layered closures. All closures exceeded estimates of clinical tension in wound closure, suggesting that knotless skin closures may be a viable option in some scenarios to reduce closure time and suture material. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40439760What 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.