Evaluating Different Techniques Of Laparotomy Closure: A Prospective Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52783/jns.v14.3857Keywords:
Laparotomy closure, Midline incision, Wound complications, Suture technique, Prospective studyAbstract
Background: Optimal laparotomy closure techniques remain a subject of debate despite advances in surgical methods and materials. Patients currently experience a variety of surgical complications including wound dehiscence and surgical site infections (SSIs) and incisional hernias and postoperative pain that persists. Identifying the most effective closure technique could reduce the incidence of these complications, minimize reoperations, and improve patient outcomes.
Methods: A 12-month prospective research was carried out at a tertiary care hospital.. A total of 150 patients requiring midline laparotomy were consecutively recruited and randomized into three groups (n=50 per group): Group A utilized interrupted, conventional sutures; Group B employed continuous, slowly absorbable sutures; and Group C applied a layered closure technique combining interrupted fascia sutures with continuous skin sutures. Wound complication rates including infections and incision dehiscence and incisional hernia served as the main study outcome measure during six months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included operative time for closure, postoperative pain scores, and patient quality-of-life indices. Data were analyzed using appropriate univariate and multivariate statistical tools.
Results: The participants demonstrated equivalent characteristics when researchers evaluated each group at the start of the study. Research data showed that Group C patients recorded lower amounts of wound complications when compared to Groups A and B with statistical significance (p<0.05). The surgical conclusion time was considerably shorter in Group B (p<0.01) yet postoperative discomfort reached its minimum level in Group C. At six months the patients in Groups B and C developed few incisional hernia cases with Group C achieving statistical significance (p<0.05).
Conclusion: A layered closure technique combining interrupted fascial sutures with continuous cutaneous suturing appears to offer a balanced approach, yielding fewer wound complications and acceptable operative times. These findings underscore the importance of appropriate suture selection and closure technique to optimize outcomes
Downloads
Metrics
References
Granger, S., Fallon, J., Hopkins, J., & Pullyblank, A. (2020). An open and closed case: timing of closure following laparostomy. The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 102(7), 519-524.
Williams, L. A., Sagar, P. M., Finan, P. J., & Burke, D. (2008). The outcome of loop ileostomy closure: a prospective study. Colorectal Disease, 10(5), 460-464.
Lujan Mompean, J. A., Robles Campos, R., Parrilla Paricio, P., Soria Aledo, V., & Garcia Ayllon, J. (1994). Laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy: a prospective assessment. British journal of surgery, 81(1), 133-135.
Milsom, J. W., Böhm, B., Hammerhofer, K. A., Fazio, V., Steiger, E., & Elson, P. (1998). A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 187(1), 46-54.
McAnena, O. J., Austin, O., O'connell, P. R., Hederman, W. P., Gorey, T. F., & Fitzpatrick, J. M. (1992). Laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy: a prospective evaluation. British Journal of Surgery, 79(8), 818-820.
Henriksen, N. A., Deerenberg, E. B., Venclauskas, L., Fortelny, R. H., Miserez, M., & Muysoms, F. E. (2018). Meta-analysis on materials and techniques for laparotomy closure: the MATCH review. World journal of surgery, 42, 1666-1678.
Diener, M. K., Voss, S., Jensen, K., Büchler, M. W., & Seiler, C. M. (2010). Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of surgery, 251(5), 843-856.
Patel, S. V., Paskar, D. D., Nelson, R. L., Vedula, S. S., & Steele, S. R. (2017). Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (11).
Frutos, M. D., Abrisqueta, J., Lujan, J., Abellan, I., & Parrilla, P. (2013). Randomized prospective study to compare laparoscopic appendectomy versus umbilical single-incision appendectomy. Annals of surgery, 257(3), 413-418.
Tozzi, R., Malur, S., Koehler, C., & Schneider, A. (2005). Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in endometrial cancer: first analysis of survival of a randomized prospective study. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 12(2), 130-136.
Brenner, M., Bochicchio, G., Bochicchio, K., Ilahi, O., Rodriguez, E., Henry, S., ... & Scalea, T. (2011). Long-term impact of damage control laparotomy: a prospective study. Archives of surgery, 146(4), 395-399.
Richards, P. C., BALCH, C. M., & ALDRETE, J. S. (1983). A randomized prospective study of 571 patients comparing continuous vs. interrupted suture techniques. Annals of surgery, 197(2), 238-243.
Ryou, M., Pai, R., Sauer, J., Rattner, D., & Thompson, C. (2007). Evaluating an optimal gastric closure method for transgastric surgery. Surgical endoscopy, 21, 677-680.
Sharrock, A. E., Barker, T., Yuen, H. M., Rickard, R., & Tai, N. (2016). Management and closure of the open abdomen after damage control laparotomy for trauma. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury, 47(2), 296-306.
Kellokumpu, I. H., Vironen, J., & Scheinin, T. (2000). Laparoscopic repair of rectal prolapse: a prospective study evaluating surgical outcome and changes in symptoms and bowel function. Surgical endoscopy, 14, 634-640.
Kirkpatrick, A. W., Coccolini, F., Ansaloni, L., Roberts, D. J., Tolonen, M., McKee, J. L., ... & Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL) after Source Control for Severe Complicated Intra-Abdominal Sepsis Investigators. (2018). Closed Or Open after Source Control Laparotomy for Severe Complicated Intra-Abdominal Sepsis (the COOL trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. World journal of emergency surgery, 13, 1-16.
Yuen, P. M., Yu, K. M., Yip, S. K., Lau, W. C., Rogers, M. S., & Chang, A. (1997). A randomized prospective study of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the management of benign ovarian masses. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 177(1), 109-114.
Bonjer, H. J., Hazebroek, E. J., Kazemier, G., Giuffrida, M. C., Meijer, W. S., & Lance, J. F. (1997). Open versus closed establishment of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery. British Journal of Surgery, 84(5), 599-602.
Cheatham, M. L., Demetriades, D., Fabian, T. C., Kaplan, M. J., Miles, W. S., Schreiber, M. A., ... & Rotondo, M. F. (2013). Prospective study examining clinical outcomes associated with a negative pressure wound therapy system and Barker’s vacuum packing technique. World journal of surgery, 37(9), 2018-2030.
Bee, T. K., Croce, M. A., Magnotti, L. J., Zarzaur, B. L., Maish III, G. O., Minard, G., ... & Fabian, T. C. (2008). Temporary abdominal closure techniques: a prospective randomized trial comparing polyglactin 910 mesh and vacuum-assisted closure. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 65(2), 337-344.
Sugrue, M., Jones, F., Janjua, K. J., Deane, S. A., Bristow, P., & Hillman, K. (1998). Temporary abdominal closure: a prospective evaluation of its effects on renal and respiratory physiology. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 45(5), 914-921.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
