The Search for an Ideal Method of Abdominal Fascial Closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The ideal suture for abdominal fascial closure has yet to be determined. Surgical practice continues to rely largely on tradition rather than high-quality level I evidence. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine which suture material and technique reduces the odds of incisional hernia. METHODS: MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles in English published from 1966 to 1998 using the keywords "suture", "abdomen/surgery", and "randomized controlled trials". Randomized controlled trials, trials of adult patients, and trials with a Jadad Quality Score of more than 3, comparing suture materials, technique, or both, were included. Two independent reviewers critically appraised study quality and extracted data. The reviewers were masked to the study site, authors, journal, and date to minimize bias. The primary outcome was postoperative incisional hernia. Secondary outcomes included wound dehiscence, infection, wound pain, and suture sinus formation. RESULTS: The occurrence of incisional hernia was significantly lower when nonabsorbable sutures were used. Suture technique favored nonabsorbable continuous closure. Suture sinuses and wound pain were significantly lower when absorbable sutures were used. There were no differences in the incidence of wound dehiscence or wound infection with respect to suture material or method of closure. Subgroup analyses of individual sutures showed no significant difference in incisional hernia rates between polydioxanone and polypropylene. Polyglactin showed an increased wound failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal fascial closure with a continuous nonabsorbable suture had a significantly lower rate of incisional hernia. The ideal suture is nonabsorbable, and the ideal technique is continuous.
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 | 0.038 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".