• TheDoozer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    I was under the impression it was forthe woman’s benefit, that it is easier for a cut to heal than a tear. Is that not the case? Is the risk of tearing overblown?

    • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      I think you actually have that backward. In general, a jagged tear heals quicker than an incision because there is more surface area in contact between the two pieces, so a larger number of cells can be working to repair the tissue. That said, I’m not a doctor and it’s been 10 years since my wife and I looked into this before our first kid, so I may be misremembering.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        It’s not about the surface area, a tear heals without creating a straight line of inflexible scar tissue in flexible tissue. You recover faster and better, because you distribute the new connections throughout the tissue, you don’t have this one rigid perforation to tear, so you don’t have to be healed up all the way before you can get back on your feet

        In general, it’s the opposite though - a sharp cut heals much faster than a rip, there’s far less damage to repair

        • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          Thanks for the explanation!

          You recover faster and better, because you distribute the new connections throughout the tissue, you don’t have this one rigid perforation to tear, so you don’t have to be healed up all the way before you can get back on your feet

          Isn’t this a function of the surface area, though?

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 days ago

            I mean…sort of? I can’t say that’s wrong, but I also don’t think it’s the full picture

            Like imagine a cut rope. Gluing the ends together joins it with a weak point, but if you unravel the ends and weave them back together, you can create a very strong connection, even without glue

            Yes, the surface area in the latter is far greater, but in addition to the surface area you have the structure - the weave itself grants strength, because when you pull the rope the fibers compress against each other, making it stronger than just surface area contact

            I think it’s kinda like that, surface area certainly plays a big part, but I think it’s more than that. It lets the muscles reweave themselves - as opposed to the skin and the uterus lining, which are cut in straight lines to minimize damaged surface area - they’re more like cloth than rope, you stitch them up in neat lines