{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02660300136425648, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021145975443383355, 'mean_word_length': 5.323275862068965, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Water-tight knee arthrotomy closure: comparison of a novel single bidirectional barbed self-retaining running suture versus conventional interrupted sutures.

Standard medial parapatellar arthrotomies of 10 cadaveric knees were closed with either conventional interrupted absorbable sutures (control group, mean of 19.4 sutures) or a single running knotless bidirectional barbed absorbable suture (experimental group). Water-tightness of the arthrotomy closure was compared by simulating a tense hemarthrosis and measuring arthrotomy leakage over 3 minutes. Mean total leakage was 356 mL and 89 mL in the control and experimental groups, respectively (p = 0.027). Using 8 of the 10 knees (4 closed with control sutures, 4 closed with an experimental suture), a tense hemarthrosis was again created, and iatrogenic suture rupture was performed: a proximal suture was cut at 1 minute; a distal suture was cut at 2 minutes. The impact of suture rupture was compared by measuring total arthrotomy leakage over 3 minutes. Mean total leakage was 601 mL and 174 mL in the control and experimental groups, respectively (p = 0.3). In summary, using a cadaveric model, arthrotomies closed with a single bidirectional barbed running suture were statistically significantly more water-tight than those closed using a standard interrupted technique. The sample size was insufficient to determine whether the two closure techniques differed in leakage volume after suture rupture.