Ex Vivo Biomechanical Comparison of 4 Suture Materials for Laparoscopic Bladder Closure in the Horse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare a knotless, barbed suture to standard suture using laparoscopic suturing methods in an ex vivo model of equine bladder repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cadaveric study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Equine cadaver bladders (n=42). METHODS: A 5-cm incision was created and repaired in a laparoscopic training box with 4 different suture materials. Groups 1 and 2 used 2-0 poliglecaprone and 2-0 glycomer knotless, barbed suture, respectively, placed using laparoscopic instruments. Groups 3 and 4 used 0 and 2-0 polyglyconate knotless, barbed suture, respectively, placed using an automated laparoscopic suturing device. All groups used a double-layer inverting pattern. Time for suture placement was recorded. Bladders were inflated with water and bursting strength pressures recorded, including a control group of intact bladders. Statistical analysis using a linear model and taking into account the unequal variances was followed by a post-hoc Tukey's test. Significance was set at P<.05. RESULTS: Bursting strength did not vary significantly between treatment groups, but was significantly decreased compared to the control group (P<.001). Time to place the sutures with the 2 automated suture device groups (groups 3 and 4) was significantly faster than those in which the suture was placed using laparoscopic needle holders and forceps (groups 1 and 2; P=.001). CONCLUSION: Knotless, barbed suture may be a viable alternative to standard suture material for laparoscopic closure of the urinary bladder in horses. Further cyclic and in vivo testing should be performed before use in clinical cases.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".