Practice real-world laceration cases, get instant feedback against cited clinical sources, and refine your closure plans with AI-assisted review.
Start here
Each case pairs a realistic wound vignette with a structured answer key drawn from cited clinical education sources (StatPearls, AAFP, Merck Manual, CDC ACIP), plus optional AI feedback on your own written closure plan.
"A 34-year-old man presents 3 hours after slicing his volar forearm on a kitchen knife — clean, well-vascularized edges, low tension, no tendon involvement."
Example case: Extremity · clean, low tension
About
Stitch-it is a self-paced tool for wound closure decision-making — built around one realistic laceration vignette at a time.
Wound closure isn't always a single right answer, and this tool doesn't pretend otherwise: every answer key flags where cited sources genuinely disagree or leave room for clinical judgment. Before you see it, a free-text field asks you to explain your own reasoning — so you're building judgment through repetition, not just memorizing a lookup table.
By the numbers
Every figure below reflects what's actually in this tool today — no invented usage stats.
How it works
A short, realistic wound vignette — patient, mechanism, timing, and exam findings — the same details you'd get in a real chart.
Work through multiple-choice questions drawn from the case's clinical decision points — then describe your full closure plan in your own words.
See a structured, cited answer key for every field, plus optional AI feedback on your written plan — constrained to that same sourced content.
What each case can test
Auto-generated cases draw 5 of these 8 domains as multiple-choice questions, chosen fresh each time — hand-authored specialty cases carry their own custom question set entirely.
Domain 1
Absorbable vs. non-absorbable, and which specific material — nylon, polypropylene, Vicryl, tissue adhesive — fits the wound's contamination, tension, and location.
Domain 2
Finer gauges (6-0, 7-0) for the face and delicate tissue; heavier gauges (3-0, 4-0) for thick, high-tension skin like the back, scalp, or soles.
Domain 3
Simple interrupted, running, vertical or horizontal mattress, subcuticular — chosen for tension distribution, eversion, and cosmetic outcome.
Domain 4
Primary closure, delayed primary closure, secondary intention, or referral — driven by contamination, time since injury, and wound mechanism.
Domain 5
Most clean, low-tension wounds need none — but deep dead space or heavy contamination can call for a Penrose or Jackson-Pratt drain.
Domain 6
Not routine for clean wounds — but bites, deep puncture wounds, and heavily contaminated injuries usually warrant empiric coverage.
Domain 7
The right dressing and follow-up wound-care instructions for the closure chosen — not always the same for every wound type.
Domain 8
When (or whether) the closure material comes out — varies by body site, tension, and whether an absorbable material was used at all.
What you get
Six graded fields per case — the same considerations that actually drive a real closure plan, not just "pick the right suture."
Wound prep, closure timing, drain, antibiotics, dressing, removal timeline, and tetanus flag — each cited to StatPearls, AAFP, Merck Manual, or CDC ACIP guidance.
Write your closure plan in your own words and get constructive feedback from Claude, explicitly limited to the sourced answer key — nothing invented beyond it.
A running scoreboard across cases so you can see progress case over case, not just a single pass/fail.
Options are balanced for length and detail, and lopsided "always pick the default" questions are deliberately thinned out — so getting it right means reading the vignette, not pattern-matching the choices.
Resources
Every source cited anywhere in this tool, in one place.
Built for the boards
Wound closure and surgical decision-making show up across licensing and specialty exams worldwide.
FAQ
A practice quiz for wound closure decisions: 131 vignettes across General and 13 surgical specialties, each with a structured, cited answer key and optional AI feedback on your written plan.
Medical, PA, and nursing students, and anyone else who wants repeated practice with wound closure decisions before relying on it in a real clinical setting.
Each field is cited to a specific source — StatPearls, AAFP, Merck Manual Professional, or CDC ACIP guidance. Where a field couldn't be confidently sourced, it's flagged as "insufficient guideline data" instead of guessed.
There's nothing for you to manage — the API key lives only as a server-side environment variable and is never sent to your browser or visible in any network request you can inspect.
No. This is an educational practice tool, not a substitute for your course materials or a licensed clinical supervisor — always verify against those before applying anything in practice.
Jump into the first vignette and see how your closure plan compares.