A study on comparison of conventional suturing and tissue adhesive (2-octyl cyanoacrylate) for skin closure in inguinal hernia surgeries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Wound closure techniques have evolved from suture material to advanced techniques that include skin staplers, skin glue and adhesive tapes. Based on efficacy of advanced suturing techniques patient may be benefited with better cosmesis, lesser postoperative pain, less wound infection and lesser hospital stay. The aim of the study was to compare the results of adhesive glue with suture material in skin closure in hernia surgeries.Methods: This study involves 100 patients undergoing open inguinal hernia surgery. In 50 of the patient’s skin closure was done with conventional suturing (3-0 ETHILON) and other 50 patients with tissue glue (2-octyl cyanoacrylate). Observation regarding postoperative pain, skin closure time and scar assessment were made, and their results were compared.Results: The mean time taken for skin closure in adhesive group was 2.72±1.32minutes and that of suture group was 4.88±1.533minutes. This difference was of great significance with p value of <0.001. The visual analogue scale shows mean value of 5.3±0.68 for suture group and for skin group it was 3.68±0.62. This value was of great significance with p value <0.001. Postoperative pain was comparatively less in tissue glue group. Postoperative scar was analysed with Vancouver scar scale at regular intervals. The mean score for suture group was 8.3±0.8 and for skin glue group it was 2.8±0.75. These differences of score was of great significance with p value <0.001.Conclusions: Adhesive glue is superior to conventional suturing in clean elective surgeries. It is a safe and an effective method of skin closure with less postoperative pain and better cosmesis of the scar.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".