Continuous Absorbable Intradermal Sutures Yield Better Cosmetic Results than Nonabsorbable Interrupted Sutures in Open Appendectomy Wounds: A Prospective, Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is the most common reason for abdominal surgery in young adults and children. Open appendectomy is still the treatment often chosen because it is simple, safe, and effective. Our aim was to study whether cosmetic results of appendectomy wounds are better after using continuous absorbable intradermal (A) sutures compared with wound closure with interrupted nonabsorbable (NA) sutures. METHODS: A total of 206 adult patients with clinically suspected appendicitis were allocated to the study and prospectively randomized into two wound-closure groups: the interrupted NA suture group and the A suture group. Of these, 193 patients with sufficient data were invited to the outpatient clinic for cosmetic analysis. Cosmetic results were evaluated after a median of 14 months. For subjective scar assessment, the Vancouver scar scale, the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS), and a visual analog scale (VAS) were used. Objective evaluation was carried out by measuring surface area, average width, and estimated concentration change (ECC) of hemoglobin and melanin in the scar using spectrocutometry. For statistical analyses we used the Mann-Whitney test and Student's t test. RESULTS: Both objective and subjective analyses showed better cosmetic results for absorbable intradermal suturing. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant as regards POSAS in both patient (p = 0.032) and observer scales (p = 0.001), and VAS (p = 0.002). Scar surface area was significantly smaller in group A than in group NA (p = 0.002). ECC measurements showed higher values for melanin in group NA than in group A (p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Continuous intradermal absorbable suturing yields a better cosmetic result than interrupted nonabsorbable suturing in lower abdominal transverse appendectomy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".