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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
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
Skin staples were compared with two conventional suture methods for speed, convenience, effectiveness and cost. One hundred and ninety-five patients having linear abdominal incisions were randomly allocated to one of three methods of interrupted skin closure--polypropylene sutures, polyglactin sutures or stainless steel staples and the wounds were assessed over 30 days. The mean rate of wound closure using sutures was 4.2 cm per minute while staples were faster at 22.5 cm per minute and saved an average of three minutes per wound. The time saved was considerably greater with long incisions. Staples cost 50p more per 15 cm wound than either suture. In other respects the three methods were comparable except that polyglactin caused the least wound pain. We believe the advantages of speed and convenience of skin staples outweigh the extra cost, provided the disposable instruments are reused until empty.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2499561 | PMC |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!