Searching for the safest abdominal closure technique after emergency laparotomy for Hinchey III and IV peritonitis

Authors

  • Nicolo Tamini Department of Surgery, School of Medicine and Surgery, Milano-Bicocca University, Italy Department of Surgery, San Gerardo Hospital, Via Pergolesi 33, 20900, Monza, Italy
  • Marco Cereda Department of Surgery, School of Medicine and Surgery, Milano-Bicocca University, Italy Department of Surgery, San Gerardo Hospital, Via Pergolesi 33, 20900, Monza, Italy
  • Giulia Capelli Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Italy
  • Alessandro Giani Department of Surgery, School of Medicine and Surgery, Milano-Bicocca University, Italy Department of Surgery, San Gerardo Hospital, Via Pergolesi 33, 20900, Monza, Italy
  • Luca Gianotti Department of Surgery, School of Medicine and Surgery, Milano-Bicocca University, Italy Department of Surgery, San Gerardo Hospital, Via Pergolesi 33, 20900, Monza, Italy

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20173388

Keywords:

Abdominal wall closure, Emergency surgery, Interrupted, Peritonitis, Running

Abstract

Background: The optimal strategy for abdominal wall closure has been an ongoing issue of debate and convincing evidence is still lacking. The INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis published on annals of surgery 2010 suggested that a running suture with a slowly absorbable suture material was the gold standard technique for abdominal wall closure after elective surgery, while there’s no general agreement in the emergency setting.

Methods: Retrospective study regarding patients who underwent emergency surgery for a generalized peritonitis due to colonic perforation from 2002 to 2014 at San Gerardo hospital (Monza, Italy). Particularly study analyzed differences between continuous suture (Maxon loop, Covidien ©) and interrupted suture (Safil, B. Braun ©) for fascial closure and between metallic clips and second intention healing for incision management. After completion of data retrieval, 110 patients were included in the statistical analysis.

Results: Incisional hernia rate was 15/101 (14.9%) and surgical site infection rate was 29/110 (26.4%). No significant statistical differences were found between incidence of incisional hernia and surgical site infection in the two groups, although there was a higher prevalence of incisional hernia in the running suture group (25% vs 11,7%). There was no difference between skin-stapler’s and second-intention’s wound closure groups in terms of surgical site infection and incisional hernia development.

Conclusions: We consider reasonable to use an interrupted long time absorbable suture for fascial closure after emergency midline laparotomy for Hinchey III and IV peritonitis, at least in high-risk patients. Considering skin closure, suggestion is to perform a primary skin closure.

References

Makela JT, Kiviniemi H, Juvonen T, Laitinen S. Factors influencing wound dehiscence after midline laparotomy. Am J Surg. 1995;170:387-90.

Cheadle WG. Risk factors for surgical site infection. Surg Infect. 2006;7:1:S7-11.

Rahbari NN, Knebel P, Diener MK, Seidlmayer C, Ridwelski K, Stoltzing H, et al. Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery - is there any consensus? BMC Surg. 2009;9(1):8.

Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, Buchler MW, Seiler CM. Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2010;251:843-56.

Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K, Campanelli G, Conze J, Cuccurullo D, et al. European hernia society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia. 2015;19:1-24.

Rahbari NN, Knebel P, Kieser M, Bruckner T, Bartsch DK, Friess H, et al. Design and current status of CONTINT: continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy - a randomized controlled multicentre trial. Trials. 2012;13(1):72.

Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373-83.

Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(11):1245-51.

Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:165-228.

Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M. (1991) POSSUM: A scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg. 1991;78:355-60.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205-13.

Sorensen LT, Hemmingsen U, Kallehave F, Wille-Jorgensen P, Kjaergaard J, Moller LN, et al. Risk factors for tissue and wound complications in gastrointestinal surgery. Ann Surg. 2005;241:654-8.

Graham DJ, Stevenson JT, McHenry CR. (1998) The association of intra-abdominal infection and abdominal wound dehiscence. Am Surg. 1998;64:660-5.

Medina M, Sillero M, Martinez-Gallego G, Delgado-Rodriguez M. Risk factors of surgical wound infection in patients undergoing herniorrhaphy. Eur J Surg. 1997;163:191-8.

Downloads

Published

2017-07-24

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles