MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977822875 · doi:10.14740/jcgo.v8i3.560

Use of Cyanoacrylate N-Butyl Versus Subcuticular Suture in the Dermal Closure Following Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2019· article· en· W2977822875 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessica Aidée Mora-Galván, Norberto Reyes-Paredes, Juan Manuel Grosso-Espinosa, Marco Antonio Ortiz-Ramirez, Myrna Souraye Godines-Enriquez, Cintia María Sepúlveda-Rivera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Sutures and Adhesives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCosmesisCyanoacrylateSurgeryRandomized controlled trialFibrous jointBody mass indexScarsWound closurePatient satisfactionWound healingAdhesiveInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Currently the use of tissue adhesives for surgical wound closure has multiplied; however, its use in cesarean sections is still not well determined. The objective of this study was to compare the surgical wound healing following cesarean sections between N-butyl cyanoacrylate (Tisuacryl) and suture (Monocryl 2-0). Methods: A randomized, non-blinded controlled clinical trial was conducted from October 2017 to March 2018 at the Instituto Nacional de Perinatologia. Forty women undergoing cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to skin closure group using a random number table: 20 with N-butyl cyanoacrylate (Tisuacryl) (cases group) and 20 with Monocryl (control group). Scars were evaluated at 24 h, 1 week, 1 month and 3 months. Primary objective was to evaluate the esthetics of the scar with the scar cosmesis assessment and rating (SCAR) scale. Secondary objectives were skin closing time, the satisfaction of the patient and the satisfaction of the surgeon. Results: Demographic characteristics, including average age, body mass index and number of pregnancies, were similar in both groups. The skin closing time showed a significant decrease with a P value of 0.000 between Tisuacryl and Monocryl (54.95 ± 10.353 s in the first group vs. 407.5 ± 72.61 s) . The esthetic evolution of surgery using the SCAR scale showed a better evolution in the first visits (weekly and monthly) in the Monocryl group (2.05 ± 0.60 and 1.68 ± 0.477) vs. Tisuacryl (2.77 ± 0.685 and 2.55 ± 0.74) with a P value of 0.001 in SCAR 1 (first visit) and 0.000 in SCAR 2 (second visit). However, no significant differences were observed in the last result at 3 months (SCAR 3). Similarly, no significant differences were observed regarding the satisfaction of the surgeon or the patient. Conclusions: The results of skin healing with Tisuacryl vs. Monocryl were similar in terms of the esthetics and satisfaction of the patient or the surgeon. Therefore, the use of each one depends on surgeon/patient preferences and the availability of materials. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2019;8(3):85-90 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo560

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and ObstetricsSame topicSurgical Sutures and AdhesivesFrench-language works237,207