A randomized controlled study to compare the efficacy of hughes abdominal repair with conventional abdominal closure-to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias in Indian population
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20172783Keywords:
Hughes abdominal repair, Incisional hernia, LaparotomyAbstract
Background: Incisional hernia forms the most common delayed morbidity following midline laparotomy surgeries- causing mental trauma to the patient impairing their quality of life and scars the name and fame of the surgeon. So, the need for possible attributes on surgeon’s aspect to prevent the incisional hernia is the need of the hour. We planned a randomized controlled trial to compare two different abdominal closure techniques to reduce the incidence of Incisional hernia following midline laparotomy incisions. We advocated Hughes abdominal repair which includes a series of two horizontal and two vertical mattresses within single suture whereby the tension load of suture is distributed both along and across the suture line.
Methods: 1:1 Randomized controlled trial in which the patient is blinded and obviously operating surgeon is non-blinded. Evaluating examiner and radiologist are blinded.100 patients who underwent emergency and elective midline laparotomies were enrolled in the study and intra-operatively randomized into two groups in 1:1 pattern. Ethical clearance obtained from the Institutional ethical committee. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of burst abdomen at the end of 15 days by the evaluating surgeon (non-operated surgeon who is blinded). The secondary outcome is the incidence of incisional hernia at the end of one year-evaluated by detailed clinical examination with radiological proof using CT abdomen.
Results: The incidence of incisional hernia is significantly low in Hughes abdominal repair than conventional abdominal closure.
Conclusions: Hughes abdominal wall closure is superior to conventional closure in both emergency and elective laparotomy cases, in prevention of wound dehiscence and Incisional hernias later. Present study encourages us that Hughes abdominal wall repair is comparable to mesh repairs. This study needs to be continued further to a vast sample size to perfectly assess the statistical significance.
Metrics
References
Heger P, Pianka F, Diener MK, Mihaljevic AL. Current standards of abdominal wall closure techniques: conventional suture techniques. The surgeon. J Surg Med. 2016;87(9):737-43.
Nho RL, Mege D, Ouaissi M, Sielezneff I, Sastre B. Incidence and prevention of ventral incisional hernia. J Visceral Surg. 2012;149(5):e3-14.
Van't Riet M, Steyerberg EW, Nellensteyn J, Bonjer HJ, Jeekel J. Meta‐analysis of techniques for closure of midline abdominal incisions. Br J Surg. 2002;89(11):1350-6.
Hodgson NC, Malthaner RA, Ostbye T. The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2000;231(3):436-42.
Weiland DE, Bay RC, Del Sordi S. Choosing the best abdominal closure by meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 1998;176(6):666-70.
Agrawal CS, Tiwari P, Mishra S, Rao A, Hadke NS, Adhikari S, et al. Interrupted abdominal closure prevents burst: randomized controlled trial comparing interrupted-x and conventional continuous closures in surgical and gynecological patients. In J Surg. 2014;76(4):270-6.
Godara R, Garg P, Shankar G. Comparative evaluation of Cardiff repair and mesh plasties in incisional hernias. Internet J Surg. 2007;9.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
