The Effect of Suture Pattern and Tension on Cutaneous Blood Flow as Assessed by Laser Doppler Flowmetry in a Pig Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of various suture patterns on cutaneous blood flow (CBF) at the wound edge as increasing tension is applied through the suture. METHODS: Four different suture patterns commonly used for wound closure (simple, vertical mattress, horizontal mattress, and Allgower-Donati) were placed individually after a full-thickness incision was made in an anesthetized pig. A laser Doppler flowmeter (LDF) was placed on the skin edge after the suture was passed. Baseline CBF was recorded. Increasing tension was applied to the wound edge via the suture through a tensionometer in 0.5-lb (0.23-kg) increments from 0 to 2.5 lb (1.13 kg). CBF was then recorded as a function of tension for each suture pattern. RESULTS: The Allgower-Donati suture pattern affected CBF significantly less than the other three suture patterns did for all tensions from 0.5 to 2.0 lb (0-0.9 kg; P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between vertical mattress, horizontal mattress, and simple suture patterns. CONCLUSIONS: The Allgower-Donati suture pattern had the least effect on CBF with increasing tension in this model. Further study is warranted on the benefits of this suture pattern because it may decrease wound complications in traumatized tissues.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".