Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
We compared knee arthrotomy closures using interrupted biodegradable sutures and running bidirectionally barbed sutures in cadaveric specimens subjected to cyclic loading. During the initial 2000 flexion cycles, both groups maintained closure and no suture ruptured. Suture throws were then sequentially cut to weaken the repairs, and the knees were cyclically flexed after each cut. Both types of suture repairs survived the cutting of the first throw or stitch and subsequent cyclical testing. However, there was a significant difference in the repairs after multiple cuts (log-rank test, P < .003). None of the knees in the interrupted suture group survived more than 3 cuts, whereas in the barbed repair group, it took the severing of as many as 7 throws for failure to occur.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.07.003 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!