MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155661674 · doi:10.1177/1090820x12467797

Effectiveness of Wound Closure With V-Loc 90 Sutures in Lipoabdominoplasty Patients

2012· article· en· W2155661674 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAesthetic Surgery Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Sutures and Adhesives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBarbed sutureSurgeryWound closureFibrous jointFasciaDermisWound healingAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Barbed sutures have gained wider acceptance, especially among plastic surgeons. However, limited information exists about the effectiveness of wound closure using these sutures. OBJECTIVES: The authors compare closure times and clinical outcomes of 2-layer wound closure using V-Loc 90 barbed sutures (Covidien, Inc, Mansfield, Massachusetts) with conventional, 3-layer closure with nonbarbed, nonlocking sutures. METHODS: The lipoabdominoplasty wounds of 30 consecutive patients were divided into 2 equal halves, and the control and study halves of the wound were randomly assigned for each patient. On the control side, a conventional 3-layer wound closure (Scarpa's fascia, deep dermis, and upper dermis) was performed using polyglactin 910 and polyglecaprone 25 sutures. On the study side, the wound was closed in 2 layers (Scarpa's fascia and upper dermis) using a running suture of V-Loc 90 sutures. Closure of each layer and of the entire half of the wound was performed by a single surgeon and timed. Patients were followed for an average of 13 months postoperatively. Postoperative complications were recorded and scar appearance was evaluated with the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). RESULTS: Data were collected from a total of 30 control and 30 study sides. The mean closure time for each layer was faster with barbed sutures than with nonbarbed sutures, and the total average closure time was 4.4 minutes (36.1%) faster using barbed sutures compared with conventional sutures (7.9 vs 12.3 minutes, respectively; P < .0001). Postoperative wound complications occurred in 4 (13.3%) control sides compared with 1 (3.3%) study side of the wound. The VSS scores were similar between the 2 sides. The lateral section of the scar received lower VSS scores than central sections. CONCLUSIONS: Two-layer wound closure using V-Loc 90 barbed sutures was safe and faster and resulted in fewer postoperative complications than 3-layer closure with conventional, nonbarbed sutures. V-Loc 90 sutures did not produce better scar cosmesis. Wound closure with barbed sutures may be financially and clinically advantageous in lipoabdominoplasty patients as it requires less wound closure time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it