EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF KNOTLESS BARBED SUTURES IN CAPSULAR CLOSURE FOLLOWING DISTAL FEMUR FRACTURE FIXATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction: Good wound closure is an important step in management of distal femur fracture to prevent infection and faster rehabilitation. Knotless barbed sutures can save time and distribute wound tension evenly. However, its role in terms of functional outcome, closure time, and postoperative complications has not been studied in a distal femur fracture. Material and methods: A total of 47 patients aged more than 18 years of distal femur fracture treated with distal femur locking plate were randomized either into either barbed or traditional suture groups. in the barbed group, capsular wound closure was carried out with 2-0 bidirectional barbed knotless sutures (Quill SRS® PDO, Angiotech, Vancouver, BC, Canada). In patients assigned to group B, capsular closure was done with 1-0 Vicryl® (Ethicon inc. Somerville, NJ) and 5-0 Ethibond® alternatively. Results: The mean flexion at the knee joint was 105.7±15.6 degrees in the study group while it was 110.4±13.7 in the control group (p= 0.2133). Mean estimated closure time was significantly shorter in the study group as compared to the control group (p<0.05). Cases of needle prick injury were higher in traditional suture group. Patients developed stitch abscess and superficial infection in both groups. However, the difference in incidence between the two was not statistically significant Conclusion: Barbed suture is an efficient method of wound closure. It reduces wound closure time with similar complication rate as with use of conventional sutures. Evidence Level II; Randomized Clinical Trial.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".