ArticleJournal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS2025
A Comparison of Tissue Handling Forces Between a Novel Suturing Device for Standardised Abdominal Wall Closure and Manual Needle-Driver Suturing.
Article in Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Suturing is a fundamental component of surgical procedures, wherein training emphasises the significance of gentle tissue handling. The suturing process involves the pressure exerted by the forceps onto the tissue, as well as the medial traction force applied to stabilise the tissue during the needle bite. This study examined the forces involved in tissue handling during suturing, comparing a novel suturing device for standardised abdominal closure with two sizes of curved suture needles (NDS). Methods: A model was developed to measure suturing forces. The study introduction comprised both a written letter and an oral explanation. Participants performed 10x3 needle pull-throughs, using a large needle (36 mm, LN) and a small needle (26 mm, SN). Maximum forceps pressure and maximum medial traction forces were recorded. Additionally, needle pull-through time and the area under the curve (AUC) were calculated for both forceps pressure and medial traction pressure. Results: The study involved 20 specialists, ten scrub nurses, and five surgical trainees. Of these participants, 22 were female, the average glove size was 6.9, and two were left-handed. The use of SutureTOOL resulted in significantly less force exerted with forceps (p < 0.001) when compared to NDS, and a shorter needle pull-through time (p < 0.001). No differences were observed in maximum traction force; however, the medial traction force AUC was lower for SutureTOOL and SN compared to LN (p = 0.025). Conclusion: The study revealed that SutureTOOL required less forceps pressure and exerted either less or comparable traction force to perform needle pull-throughs, compared to traditional methods. We conclude that this innovative suturing technology did not increase the forces measured in the model. However, the impact on abdominal wall related complications requires further study.
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.