Comparison of continuous versus interrupted abdominal fascia closure using polydioxanone suture in laparotomy

Avinash Chandra Sharma; Akhil Kumar Gupta; Nitin Singh; Arvind Kumar Maurya; Mamta Singla

doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20193326

Authors

Avinash Chandra Sharma Department of General Surgery, Muzaffarnagar Medical College, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, India
Akhil Kumar Gupta Department of General Surgery Muzaffarnagar Medical College, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh , India
Nitin Singh Department of General Surgery Muzaffarnagar Medical College, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh , India
Arvind Kumar Maurya Department of General Surgery Muzaffarnagar Medical College, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh , India
Mamta Singla Department of General Surgery Muzaffarnagar Medical College, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh , India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20193326

Keywords:

Laprotomy, PDS, Interrupted sutures, Continuous sutures, Wound dehiscence

Abstract

Background: Laparotomy is a major surgical procedure in emergency settings. There is paucity of data regarding abdominal fascia closure in emergency laparotomies in Indian population. This study was planned to compare two techniques of fascial closure namely continuous and interrupted using polydioxanone in patients undergoing midline emergency laparotomies in our institute.

Methods: This prospective study was conducted in Surgery Department, MMC&H, Muzaffarnagar, from January 2017 to June 2018. 60 patients undergoing emergency laparotomies were divided into two groups of 30 each. Group I (study group) patients underwent interrupted suture abdominal closure; Group II (control group) patients underwent continuous suture closure.

Results: Commonest diagnoses were duodenal and enteric perforations. Mean closure time in Group 1 was 31.6 minutes and in Group 2 -17.3 minutes. Mean hospital stay in Group I and II were 12.88 and13.76 days respectively. 4 Group I patients developed wound discharge versus 6 patients in Group II. Burst abdomen occurred in 3 out of 60 patients. One Group I patient had localised fascial burst. One Group II patient had localized while one had complete fascial burst. One incisional hernia was observed in each group at 3rd month of follow up. Three patients in Group 1 and one in Group 2 developed suture sinus.

Conclusions: Major complication is wound dehiscence leading to increased morbidity, hospital stay and cost. In our study, we used continuous and interrupted PDS sutures and found that interrupted suturing method of abdominal wall closure is better, though it takes more time.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Murtaza B, Saeed S, Sharif MA. Postoperative complications in emergency versus elective laparotomies at a peripheral hospital. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2010;22:42-7.

Bellon JM, Lopez PP, Allue RS, Sotomayor S, Kohler BP, Pena E, et al. New suture materials for midline laparotomy closure: an experimental study. BMC Surg. 2014;14:70-80.

Riou JP, Cohen JR, Johnson H. Factors influencing wound dehiscence. Am J Surg.1992;163:324-30.

Ceydeli A, Rucinski J, Wise L. Finding the Best Abdominal Closure: An Evidence-based Review of the Literature. Current Surg. 2005;62:220-5.

Spiliotis J, Tsiveriotis K, Datsis AD, Vaxevanidou A, Zacharis G. Wound dehiscence is still a problem in the 21th century: a retrospective study. World J Emerg Surg. 2009;4:12.

Shashikala V, Abhilash SB, Abhishek G, Fernandes PS. A comparative study between continuous and x-interrupted sutures in emergency midline laparotomies. Int Surg J. 2018;5:1753-7.

McNeill PM, Sugerman HJ. Continuous absorbable vs interrupted non-absorbable fascial closure. A prospective, randomized comparison. Arch Surg. 1986;121:821-3.

Richards PC, Balch CM, Aldrete JS. Abdominal wound closure. A randomized prospective study of 571 patients comparing continuous versus interrupted suture techniques. Ann Surg. 1983;197:238-43.

Trimbos JB, Smit IB, Holm JP, Hermans J. A randomized clinical trial comparing two methods of fascia closure following midline laparotomy. Arch Surg. 1992;127:1232-4.

Gislason H, Gronbech JE, Soreide O. Burst abdomen and incisional hernia after major gastrointestinal operations-comparison of three closure techniques. Eur J Surg. 1995;161:349-54.

Cruse PJ, Foord R. the epidemiology of wound infection. A ten year prospective study of 62939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am. 1980;60:27-40.

Bansiwal RK, Mittal T, Sharma R, Gupta S, Singh S, Abhishek K. Comparative study of abdominal wound dehiscence in continuous versus interrupted fascial closure after emergency midline laparotomy. Int Surg J. 2019;6:886-91.

Sahlin S, Ahlberg J, Granström L. Monofilament versus multifilamentabsorbable sutures for abdominal closure. Br J Surg. 1993,80:322–4.

Wissing J, Vroonhoven TM, Schattenkerk ME, Veen HF, Ponsen RG, Jeekal J. Fascia closure after midline laparotomy: results of a randomized trial. Br J Surg.1987;74:738-41.

Srivastava A, Roy S, Sahay KB, Seenu V, Kumar A, Chumber S, et al. Prevention of burst abdominal wound by a new technique: A randomized trial comparing continuous versus interrupted X-suture. Ind J Surg. 2004;66:220-5.

Karwasara RK, Dalal S, Bakshi V. Comparison of continuous versus interruptedabdominal fascia closure in patients of perforationperitonitis using Polydioxanone (PDS) suture: A prospective study of 50 cases. IJARESM. 2016;4(2):9-13.

Iwase K, Higaki J, Tanaka Y, Kondoh H, Yoshikawa M, Kamike W. Running closure of clean and contaminated abdominal wounds using a synthetic monofilament absorbable looped suture. Surg Today. 1999;29:874-9.