Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(10)
Two postoperative deep infections (4 %) in the staples group required multiple debridements; no infections developed in the OCA group.
Twelve patients in the staples group and 6 patients in the OCA group had vacuum-assisted dressings placed on their surgical wounds due to persistent drainage.
In addition, 11 patients in the metallic staples group and 15 patients in the OCA group required a vacuum-assisted dressing for persistent drainage from the drain holes.
Incisions closed with running subcuticular monocryl suture and OCA were clinically dry in 4.2 days, as compared to 5.85 days for the metallic staples group (Table 1).
Two deep infections (4 %) developed in the immediate postoperative period in the metallic staples group, requiring multiple irrigations and debridements with delayed closure over antibiotic beads (Table 1).
However, it is possible that a clinically important difference does exist (type II error), as no patients closed with OCA developed a deep infection compared to two patients with deep infections in the staples group.
Similar(50)
The mean force at failure of the horizontal and vertical suture groups was 63.2 and 73.9 N, respectively, 44.3 N for the arrow group and 17.8 N for the staple group.
In general, two skin staplers were required for wound closure in the staple group at a hospital charge to the patient at our institution of $20.50 each.
These failures appeared to be the result of placing the second of the two staples in the double staple group too close to the osteotomy site where the staple arm pulled through the foam; this stands as an important point to remember when using a double staple technique clinically.
The groups differed regarding sex (M/F: 3/7 in the stapling group and 8/2 in tension-band plating group).
Four studies provided data on sex 1 2 4 17; there were 60 men and 131 women in the suture group and 57 men and 117 women in the staple group.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com