Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41644642›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Objective assessment of cesarean section suturing techniques using a uterine simulator.

Hikari Nakato, Jota Maki, Chiaki Kuriyama, Shujiro Sakata, Keiichi Oishi, Ayano Suemori, Hikaru Ooba, Tomohiro Mitoma, Masakazu Kato, Sakurako Mishima and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Hikari NakatoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Jota MakiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan. ikei-jotamaki@fujihara-lc.jp.
Chiaki KuriyamaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Shujiro SakataDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Keiichi OishiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Ayano SuemoriDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Hikaru OobaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Tomohiro MitomaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Masakazu KatoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Sakurako MishimaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Akiko OhiraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Satoe KirinoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Eriko EtoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Hisashi MasuyamaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cesarean wound healing is influenced by surgeon experience, suture type, and technique. This study utilized a simulation model to quantify these effects. Obstetricians-gynecologists and junior residents performed two-layer continuous suturing on uterine models, forming eight groups based on experience level (expert, novice), suture type (conventional, barbed), and technique (Albert-Lembert, layer-to-layer). The ideal wound condition was defined as that achieved by an expert using barbed sutures and the layer-to-layer technique. Wound characteristics were quantified and compared to this ideal. Experts using barbed sutures in Albert-Lembert suturing showed higher wound density but greater deformation and larger endometrial openings (both P < 0.01). Novices using barbed sutures in Albert-Lembert suturing showed similar wound density but significantly greater deformation and opening (both P < 0.01). Novices using conventional sutures in layer-to-layer suturing showed the lowest wound density and longest suturing time (both P < 0.01). Notably, novices using barbed sutures achieved wound characteristics comparable to experts using conventional sutures in Albert-Lembert suturing and results closer to the ideal in layer-to-layer suturing. These findings establish a quantifiable standard for cesarean suturing and suggest that optimizing suture types and techniques may help compensate for differences in surgical expertise.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionSuture TechniquesUterusClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansPregnancySuturesWound HealingBarbed sutureCesarean scar defectsCesarean sectionSimulation

Identifiers

PMID41644642
PMCPMC12929746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.