Comparing the tensile strength of square and reversing half-hitch alternating post knots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Square knots are the gold standard in hand-tie wound closure, but are difficult to reproduce in deep cavities, inadvertently resulting in slipknots. The reversing half-hitch alternating post (RHAP) knot has been suggested as an alternative owing to its nonslip nature and reproducibility in limited spaces. We explored whether the RHAP knot is noninferior to the square knot by assessing tensile strength. Methods: We conducted 10 trials for each baseline and knot configuration, using 3–0 silk and 3–0 polyglactin 910 sutures. We compared tensile strength between knot configurations at the point of knot failure between slippage and breakage. Results: Maximal failure strength (mean ± SD) in square knots was reached with 4-throw in both silk (30 ± 1.5 N) and polyglactin 910 (39 ± 12 N). For RHAP knots, maximal failure strength was reached at 5-throw for both silk (31 ± 1.5 N) and polyglactin 910 (41 ± 13 N). In both sutures, there were no strength differences between 3-throw square and 4-throw RHAP, between 4-throw square and 5-throw RHAP, or between 5-throw square and 6-throw RHAP knots. Polyglactin 910 sutures, in all knot configurations, were more prone to slippage than silk sutures (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The difference in mean tensile strength could be attributed to the proportion of knot slippage versus breakage, which is material-dependent. Future studies can re-evaluate findings in monofilament sutures and objectively assess the reproducibility of square and RHAP knots in deep cavities. Our results indicate that RHAP knots composed of 1 extra throw provide equivalent strength to square knots and may be an alternative when performing hand-ties in limited cavities with either silk or polyglactin 910 sutures.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".