Comparative study of knot performance and ease of manipulation of monofilament and braided sutures for arthroscopic applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our aim was to identify alternative suture materials that might provide superior knot performance and equivalent ease of manipulation by means of an in vitro experimental study. Although used widely for arthroscopic shoulder stabilisation, absorbable poly( p-dioxanone) (PDS) monofilament sutures can lead to dehiscence and clinical failure due to knot slippage and/or loop elongation at low applied loads. With the objective of identifying alternative suture materials that might provide superior knot performance and equivalent ease of manipulation, an in vitro experiment was undertaken in which both Duncan and Snyder knotted loops were tied from four different suture materials using an arthroscopic knot pusher (Surgeon's 6th Finger) and a wooden practice box (Arthrex). Three monofilament sutures, made from polypropylene (PROLENE), poly(glycolidetrimethylenecarbonate-co-dioxanone) (Biosyn) and PDS, and one braided polyester suture (SURGIDAC) were tested. Ease of manipulation was evaluated by measuring the time required to tie the knots, and the knot performance was assessed in terms of loop elongation and loop holding capacity by performing cyclic fatigue testing of the loops while they were immersed in saline on an INSTRON mechanical tester. The PROLENE and SURGIDAC sutures showed improvements in loop elongation and loop holding capacity over PDS, with the Snyder knots being consistently superior to Duncan knots. BIOSYN gave no improvement over PDS. Difficulties were encountered in advancing half-hitch throws of the braided SURGIDAC suture down the cannula, which resulted in longer knotting times. In conclusion, both the polypropylene and polyester sutures gave superior knot performance to PDS, but only the polypropylene gave equivalent ease of manipulation. As a result there may be clinical advantages in replacing PDS with monofilament polypropylene or braided polyester sutures for certain arthroscopic procedures.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".