Clips versus suture technique: is there a difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is one of the most common procedures performed today, and wound complications are a major source of morbidity and cost. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is any difference in wound outcome (including cost in a Canadian context) between a subcuticular suture technique and skin stapling technique for closure of sternal and leg incisions in CABG patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty-two patients undergoing CABG were prospectively, randomly placed to have their sternal and leg incisions closed with either a subcuticular suture technique or with a skin clip. Data were obtained through chart review, in-hospital assessments and follow-up visits. Nonblinded assessments were made regarding wound leakage, inflammation, infection, necrosis, swelling, dehiscence and cosmesis. Each of the parameters was graded on a scale from 1 to 4. The cost was evaluated in Canadian dollars. RESULTS: There were trends toward increased rates of in-hospital sternal (P=0.09) and leg (P=0.17) incision inflammation when the wounds were closed with skin clips. There was a significantly greater (P=0.05) rate of sternal wound infection with clips, as well as a tendency (P=0.15) toward a greater rate of mediastinitis at follow-up assessment. Cosmetic outcome was similar for both groups. The cost incurred was significantly greater when skin clips were used for closure. There was a greater than threefold difference, which translates to a greater than $10,000 difference over one year. CONCLUSIONS: Closure with a subcuticular technique achieves better outcomes than the use of skin clips. When factoring in the increased cost incurred by using clips, as well as other intangible factors such as surgical skill acquisition, subcuticular suture closure appears to be a favourable method of wound closure in CABG patients compared with the use of skin stapling techniques.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.017 | 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".