ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Layered precision suturing vs. traditional double-layer closure at cesarean: a randomized trial of uterine scar healing and maternal outcomes.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Optimal uterine closure at cesarean delivery remains unsettled, as most comparative trials emphasize the number of layers rather than surgical biomechanics. We tested whether a layered precision (LP) suturing technique with quantified tension control improves uterine scar healing compared with traditional double-layer (DL) closure. Methods: We conducted a single-center, parallel-group, superiority randomized trial (1:1 LP vs. DL) at a tertiary obstetric hospital. Eligible participants were women aged 20-40 years with a singleton pregnancy at ≥37 weeks of gestation who were scheduled for a first cesarean delivery with a planned low-transverse uterine incision and who provided written informed consent. Participants were randomized using concealed allocation, and cointerventions were standardized. Surgeons were aware of the assigned closure technique, whereas imaging outcome assessors and data analysts remained blinded to the assigned interventions. A total of 500 participants were recruited and randomized. The primary endpoint at 6 months was poor healing on standardized ultrasound, defined as residual myometrial thickness (RMT) < 2.2 mm or a uterine niche (indentation ≥2 mm). Secondary endpoints included continuous imaging metrics [RMT, 3D scar morphology, MRI diffusion assessed by the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and optional shear-wave elastography], perioperative outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and subsequent pregnancy events. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using prespecified adjusted models. Results: Of the 500 participants recruited and randomized, primary-outcome data were available for 425 participants (LP 212; DL 213). Poor healing occurred in 16 of 212 participants (7.5%) in the LP group vs. 32 of 213 participants (15.0%) in the DL group [absolute risk difference=7.5 percentage points, 95% CI 1.5-13.4; risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.89; Conclusion: LP closure with quantified tension improved 6-month uterine scar healing across multimodal imaging without introducing new safety concerns, supporting a shift from "stitch count" to a standardized, biomechanics-informed technique.
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.