Bidirectional Barbed Suture in Laparoscopic Myomectomy: Clinical Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare bidirectional knotless barbed suture versus standard sutures, with either extracorporeal or intracorporeal knots, and to assess the feasibility, safety, and rapidity in repairing a uterine wall defect after laparoscopic myomectomy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a randomized clinical study having a Canadian Task Force Classification of I. In tertiary-care university-based teaching hospitals, 117 women who underwent laparoscopic myomectomy were enrolled. In accord with randomization, uterine wall defects were closed with either extracorporeal (poliglecaprone 25; Monocryl™-1; Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJ) or intracorporeal (polyglactin 910; Vicryl™-1; Ethicon Inc.) knots or a bidirectional knotless barbed suture (Quill™-0; Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada). RESULTS: Time required to suture was significantly lower in the group operated on with a bidirectional suture than in groups with traditional sutures (P<.001). No significant difference was observed in operative time among the study groups. The degree of surgical difficulty was significantly lower in the Quill group than in the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of barbed sutures reduces the time required to repair a uterine wall defect during laparoscopic myomectomy. In a follow-up of patients carried out at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after the surgery, there were no wound dehiscence, no bleeding, and no other potential major complications.
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".