ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of barbed suture and nonbarbed suture for laparoscopic cholecystoduodenostomy in rabbits: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to compare the applied efficacy of barbed suture versus non-barbed suture, as well as various stitching techniques, for laparoscopic cholecystoduodenostomy (LCD) in rabbits (imitating infants) to determine the most viable suture option. LCD was performed in a total of 45 male New Zealand white rabbits. The rabbits were equally divided into three groups: the SFB group (single-layer full-thickness running suture using barbed sutures), the SSB group (simple seromuscular layer running suture using barbed sutures) and the PDS group (single-layer full-thickness running suture using PDS sutures). The incidence of anastomotic complications, and histopathological outcomes were evaluated and compared across the groups. The mean duration for LCD was 9.6 ± 1.2 min in the SFB group and 10.8 ± 1.5 min in SSB group, both significantly shorter than the 12.0 ± 0.9 min observed in the PDS group (P < 0.001). Three cases of bile leakage were found in SFB group. H&E staining clearly revealed two cases of ectopic mucosal tissues at the anastomotic muscular layer in the SFB group. The collagen fibers, transforming growth factor-beta1 (TGF-β1), α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) of anastomotic tissues at all examined time points post-surgery were generally higher in SFB group than in the other two groups, with some statistically significant differences. No significant differences were observed between the SSB group and PDS group. The findings demonstrate that for barbed sutures, full-thickness technique was inferior to PDS sutures due to a higher bile leakage rate, whereas the seromuscular technique achieved difficult to hepatic duct. As a result, barbed sutures are not recommended for use in infants.
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.