A Comparison of Bidirectional Stratafix Continuous Suture Versus Conventional Interrupted Suture in Breast Mastectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes between Stratafix barbed sutures and conventional sutures in patients undergoing total mastectomy for breast cancer. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients who underwent total mastectomy and/or axillary lymph node dissection at our hospital. Results: A total of 29 patients were included. No significant differences were observed in clinicopathological features between the two groups. However, the percentage of suturing time within the total operative time was significantly lower in the Stratafix group compared to conventional group (10% vs. 8%). In addition, the suturing time per centimeter was also significantly shorter with Stratafix group (P < 0.001). No wound-related complications were observed in either group during at least 3 months of follow-up. Conclusions: The use of barbed sutures for wound closure in mastectomy procedures effectively reduces suturing time without increasing the incidence of wound complications. Bidirectional Stratafix barbed sutures offer an improved and efficient alternative to conventional sutures for breast surgeons.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".