ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Application of novel knotless barbed sutures in open posterior cervical spine surgery: A prospective cohort study.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOpen posterior cervical spine surgery is associated with higher rates of postoperative wound complications compared to anterior approaches. This study aimed to compare the incidence of complications and cost-effectiveness between barbed and traditional sutures in open posterior cervical spine surgery.
methodsA retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (2022-2024) was performed on 270 adult patients undergoing elective posterior cervical surgery. Of these, 138 (51%) received traditional sutures and 132 (49%) received barbed sutures. The primary outcome was the incidence of wound-related complications, specifically surgical site infection, dehiscence, and hematoma; secondary outcomes encompassed patient-reported metrics (NRS and NDI), wound closure efficiency, and perioperative costs.
resultsThe barbed suture group showed significantly shorter operative time (P < 0.001), wound closure time (P < 0.001), and drain removal time (P = 0.013), along with lower rates of wound dehiscence and hematoma (P = 0.049 and P = 0.038, respectively). No significant differences were noted in infection rates, incision length, hospital stay, 90-day readmission, or total hospitalization expenses. Barbed sutures were associated with higher rates of MCID achievement at 3 months in NRS-neck pain (P = 0.016) and NDI (P = 0.046). BMI, diabetes, and suture type were independent predictors of complications.
conclusionBarbed sutures improve surgical efficiency, reduce mechanical wound complications, and enhance neck pain-related outcomes in posterior cervical spine surgery. Their potential benefit for arm pain requires further investigation.
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.