ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Super-tension-reduction suture versus conventional closure for secondary closure of infected abdominal incisions.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Surgical site infection is a common complication after abdominal surgery and is associated with delayed wound healing, prolonged hospitalization, and increased healthcare costs. Secondary closure of infected abdominal incisions after debridement and negative pressure wound therapy remains challenging because tissue edema, inflammation, and skin retraction often lead to excessive wound tension. Super-tension-reduction suture has been proposed to redistribute wound tension and improve tissue perfusion, but its effectiveness in abdominal wound salvage remains unclear. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing abdominal wound salvage for superficial/incisional surgical site infection between January 2020 and May 2024. Patients were categorized according to the final closure technique: standard interrupted suture or super-tension-reduction suture using a modified buried vertical mattress technique. Patient demographics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Primary outcomes included recurrent surgical site infection, wound breakdown, hematoma, seroma, fat necrosis, and reoperation. Secondary outcomes included operative duration, time to drain removal, time to suture removal, and length of hospitalization. Propensity score matching was used to mitigate the selection bias. Multivariable binary logistic regression identified significant predictors of complications. Results: We included 89 patients (standard interrupted suture group: 39; super-tension-reduction suture group: 50). In the unmatched cohort, super-tension-reduction suture was associated with lower rates of recurrent surgical site infection (6.0% vs. 23.1%, Conclusion: The super-tension-reduction suture was associated with favorable clinical outcomes in abdominal wound salvage. Compared with conventional closure, it was associated with lower overall complication rates despite a modest increase in operative time. While clinically promising, these observational associations warrant further validation in prospective, randomized trials.
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.