5%, p?<?0.001), when compared to N2. Bone tissue from vertebrae with acute Selleckchem GSK1838705A compression fractures reveals a large variation in matrix mineralization depending on the stage of repair. Bisphosphonate treatment does affect the mineralization pattern of tissue repair. The low mineralization values found in early stage of repair suggest that altered bone material properties may

play a role in the occurrence of fragility fractures of the spine. (C) 2012 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 30:10891094, 2012″
“Background\n\nMost surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin, allowing the surgeon to gain access to the surgical site. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure; this review focuses on these closed wounds.

There are many ways to close the surgical incision, for example, using sutures (stitches), staples, tissue adhesives or tapes. Skin sutures can be continuous or interrupted. In general, continuous sutures are usually subcuticular and can be absorbable or non-absorbable, while interrupted sutures are usually non-absorbable and involve the full thickness of the skin – although some surgeons do use absorbable interrupted sutures.\n\nObjectives\n\nTo compare the benefits and harms of continuous compared with interrupted skin closure techniques in participants undergoing non-obstetric surgery.\n\nSearch methods\n\nIn August 2013 we searched the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised selleck kinase inhibitor Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL.\n\nSelection criteria\n\nWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared skin closure using continuous sutures with skin closure using interrupted sutures, irrespective of whether there were differences in the nature of the suture materials used in the two groups. We included all relevant RCTs in the analysis, irrespective of language

of publication, publication status, publication year or sample size.\n\nData collection and analysis\n\nTwo review authors independently identified the trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for comparing binary outcomes between the groups, selleck and calculated themean difference (MD) with 95% CI for comparing continuous outcomes. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model. We performed intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.\n\nMain results\n\nWe included five RCTs with a total of 827 participants. Outcomes were available for 730 participants (384 participants randomised to continuous sutures and 346 participants to interrupted sutures). All the trials were of unclear or high risk of bias. The participants underwent abdominal or groin operations.