ArticleScientific reports2026
Objective assessment of cesarean section suturing techniques using a uterine simulator.
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.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.