Bidirectional Barbed Suture in Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy and Lymph Node Dissection for Endometrial Cancer: Technical Evaluation and 1-Year Follow-Up of 61 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This randomized clinical study compared the feasibility and safety of the shortest suture for bidirectional knotless barbed versus standard sutures, with either extracorporeal or intracorporeal knots, for vaginal cuff closure following total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and lymph node dissection for early endometrial cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study design was Canadian Task Force Classification I. In tertiary-care university-based teaching hospitals, 61 women underwent TLH and lymph node dissection. In accord with randomization, the vaginal cuff in TLH was closed with either extracorporeal or intracorporeal knots (1-Monocryl(®); Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJ) and a bidirectional knotless barbed suture (0-Quill™; Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada). All patients were evaluated at 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Time required to suture was significantly lower in the group treated with bidirectional suture than in groups with traditional sutures (P<.001). No significant difference was observed in the operative time between the study groups. The degree of surgical difficulty was significantly lower in the bidirectional barbed suture group than in the other groups. At 1-year follow-up all patients presented no wound dehiscence, no bleeding, dyspareunia, and other potential major complications such as ureteric, bladder, or bowel injury. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a barbed suture reduces the time required to repair the vaginal cuff during TLH. At follow-up of patients, carried out 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after the surgery, no wound dehiscence, no bleeding, or no other potential major surgical complications had occurred.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".