Nurses’ Experience Removing Superficial Nonabsorbable Sutures From the Skin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In many dermatology settings, nurses remove superficial sutures from wounds of the skin. The current practice is to remove sutures between 5 and 14 days depending on the location of the defect to prevent wound overgrowth and subsequent complications. Yet, by 10 days, wound strength is only 5% of that of intact skin, also setting the stage for potential complications, such as dehiscence. We surveyed Dermatology Nurses’ Association members to understand their experiences with removing sutures from the skin. With a response rate of 16.75%, the sample size was 355 respondents. Over 90% of the respondents encountered wound overgrowth (i.e., ingrown sutures) when removing sutures. Moreover, mattress-type closures presented more difficulty on removal than simple-type closures. When sutures were ingrown, complications included patient pain (31.5%), wound bleeding (30.1%), inability to ensure the complete removal of sutures (19.2%), wound dehiscence (7.0%), and increased procedure time by nearly 2 minutes. Our findings of nurse experiences with suture removal support the need for innovative solutions to prevent wound overgrowth.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".