Efficacy and Complications of Absorbable and Non- Absorbable Sutures in Rectus Abdominis Plication: A Systematic Review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keywords: Rectus plication, diastasis recti, absorbable sutures, non-absorbable sutures, abdominoplasty. Background: Rectus abdominis plication is a key procedure in abdominoplasty to correct rectus diastasis. The choice between absorbable (e.g., polydioxanone) and nonabsorbable (e.g., nylon) sutures affects durability, complications, and cosmetic outcomes. This systematic review compares both types of sutures to guide surgical practice. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020, searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Scielo, Google Scholar, and LILACS through April 2025. Clinical studies comparing absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures in rectus plication were included, evaluating efficacy (correction, recurrence), complications (infection, dehiscence, seroma), and cosmetic outcomes. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized narratively due to heterogeneity. Results: Of 460 records identified (400 after eliminating duplicates), 10 studies were included (5 RCTs, 5 observational, n=485 patients). Non-absorbable sutures (nylon, polypropylene) showed lower recurrence rates (0-5% vs. 15-40% at 12 months) but greater palpability in thin patients. Absorbable sutures (polydioxanone, Quill) had better cosmetic results in thin patients, although with more seromas (5-10%). Absorbable barbed sutures reduced operative time. The certainty of the evidence was moderate to low (GRADE). Conclusions: Non-absorbable sutures are preferable for durability, while absorbable sutures are ideal for cosmetic purposes in thin patients. The choice should be personalized according to the patient profile. More randomized controlled trials are needed to standardize practices.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".