An In Vitro Biomechanical Comparison of the Breaking Strength and Stiffness of Polydioxanone (Sizes 2, 7) and Polyglactin 910 (Sizes 3, 6) in the Equine Linea Alba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine failure strength, stiffness, and failure mode of 4 suture materials in equine linea alba. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized complete block design. SAMPLE POPULATION: Linea albas collected from 12 adult horses (mean weight, 475 kg; mean age, 10 years). METHODS: The ventral abdominal fascia, including the linea alba, was collected and bisected along the linea alba into right and left halves. Each half was divided into four, 5-cm sections extending from the umbilicus cranially, and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 suture materials: 2 polydioxanone (2 PD), 3 polyglactin 910 (3 PG), 6 polyglactin 910 (6 PG), and 7 polydioxanone (7 PD). A single cycle to failure test was performed on each specimen at a distraction rate of 100 mm/min. Differences in failure strength and stiffness for the materials were evaluated using a mixed linear model with significance set at P<.05. RESULTS: In 94 of 96 test sections, constructs failed by suture failure. There were significant differences in failure strength (P<.0001) and stiffness (P<.001) among the suture/tissue constructs. 7 PD had the highest breaking strength (316.8 N) followed by 6 PG (281.3 N), 3 PG (229.9 N), and 2 PD (193.0 N). Six PG had the largest stiffness (14 N/mm) followed by 3 PG (12.7 N/mm), 7 PD (10.1 N/mm), and 2 PD (7.2 N/mm). Suture breaking strength and stiffness were not affected by linea or fascia thickness, individual horse, half of the linea alba, or abdominal wall position. Eighty-five (90.4%) suture loops failed adjacent the knot. CONCLUSIONS: When tested in single cycle to failure, suture material was more likely to fail than the linea alba. Larger suture materials had higher breaking strengths than smaller suture materials and stiffness was also affected by suture material and size. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Given its high initial breaking strength and its relatively longer in vivo strength retention, 7 PD seems an appropriate choice of suture material for closure of the equine linea alba when maximal short-term failure strength is desired.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".