Assessment of leakage pressure following enterotomy closure reinforced by tissue adhesive in a caprine cadaver model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the combination of suture and tissue adhesive with suture alone for closure of enterotomy incisions in an ex vivo caprine jejunal model, by measuring the intraluminal pressure at which leakage occurred and the proportion of closures that leaked at intraluminal pressures <40 mmHg. METHODS: Jejunal tissue was harvested from a goat following euthanasia, and enterotomy incisions (4 mm in length) were made in each of 24 isolated jejunal segments. The enterotomies were randomly assigned to be closed using a single interrupted suture alone (n=12) or in combination with biopolymer tissue adhesive (n=12). The jejunal segments were infused with saline containing fluorescent dye and leakage pressure was defined as the peak pressure attained when visible leakage of saline solution occurred. The number of enterotomies that did or did not exhibit leakage at <40 mmHg intraluminal pressure was also recorded. RESULTS: Enterotomies closed using a combination of suture and tissue adhesive leaked at higher intraluminal pressure (58.2 (SD 4.7) mmHg) than those closed with suture alone (29.8 (SD 4.2) mmHg; p<0.001). The proportion of enterotomy closures in which the intraluminal pressure failed to reach 40 mmHg before leakage occurred was higher in enterotomies closed using suture alone (9/12, 75%) compared to those closed using both suture and tissue adhesive (3/12, 25%; p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Use of tissue adhesive in addition to sutures increased the intraluminal pressure achieved before leakage occurred, compared to sutures alone, following enterotomy closure in a caprine cadaver model. In vivo studies are indicated to further assess the value of supplementing intestinal suture lines with tissue adhesive.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".