n-Butyl-2-cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (Histoacryl) vs. subcuticular sutures for skin closure of Pfannenstiel incisions following cesarean delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tissue adhesives are now routinely used for skin closure in various surgeries. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NBCA) tissue adhesive in cesarean delivery by comparing it with the safety and efficacy of subcuticular suture closure. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A retrospective chart review was undertaken of all patients who underwent cesarean delivery via Pfannenstiel skin incision. During the study period, a total of 209 patients had NBCA (Histoacryl®) closure and 208 patients had suture closure. Wound complications and Vancouver scar scale (VSS) scores were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in indications for cesarean deliveries or number of previous cesarean deliveries. Incidences of wound disruption and infection were also similar between the two closure groups (p = 0.322 and 0.997, respectively). The rate of wound complications was 3.4% in the NBCA group and 5.3% in the suture group. All complications healed uneventfully with topical antibiotics or closure strips. VSS scores at 6-8 weeks after operation were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.858). These results were corroborated by propensity score-matching analysis. CONCLUSIONS: NBCA may be a useful skin closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions after cesarean delivery.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".