ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025
A feasibility and safety trial investigating a device for swift and standardized median 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ergonomic evaluation of a novel suturing device (SutureTOOL) versus traditional needle-driver for aponeurotic closure: a randomized experimental study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Trial
- Small-Bite Versus Large-Bite Closure for the Prevention of Incisional Hernia: A Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2026Review
- A Comparison of Tissue Handling Forces Between a Novel Suturing Device for Standardised Abdominal Wall Closure and Manual Needle-Driver Suturing.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAbdominal wall complications can be reduced by adhering to guidelines for midline laparotomy closure. However, implementation of guidelines can be challenging. To address this issue, a laparotomy closure device for swift and standardized abdominal closure was developed. The study evaluated the quality of the suture, safety, and speed of the device in a clinical setting.
methodsA prospective, one-armed investigation was carried out. Five surgeons participated in the study. The introduction to the device involved reading the user instructions and unsupervised dry lab training. Thirty-eight patients with colorectal disease, selected for laparotomy, were recruited. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients that received a fascial closure with a suture-length to wound-length (SL/WL) ratio ≥ 4. Secondary endpoints included suturing time, glove puncture rate, wound infection (SSI), burst abdomen, and other adverse events. Follow-up included physical examination during hospital stay and postoperative visit and chart review six weeks postoperatively.
resultsAll patients achieved the primary endpoint SL/WL ratio ≥ 4. The mean suturing time was 10.5 min, while the mean net closure time (NCT) was 7.4 min. The shortest NCT recorded was 2.2 min. Net mean closure speed was 27 s/cm. There were no glove punctures. One case of SSI was reported, and no burst abdomen was detected. The learning curve stabilized after the third fascial closure.
conclusionThe SutureTOOL is a promising device for clinical application. It is perceived as safe, user-friendly, and fast, yielding a standardized laparotomy closure with a brief learning curve. The next steps involve a multi-center randomized trial to evaluate the potential impact of SutureTOOL on short- and long-term complications related to abdominal wall 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.