Abdominal midline wound closure with small bites versus large bites: a randomized comparative trial

Background: The optimal strategy of abdominal wall closure after midline laparotomy has remained an issue of ongoing debate to minimize incidence of incisional hernia which occurs in 10 to 23% cases postoperatively. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of small bites versus large bites suture technique in reduction of incidence of the complications like pain, wound infection, wound dehiscence, seroma formation and incisional hernia by using polydioxanone no.1.Methods: The present study was conducted on 100 patients undergoing elective surgery who were randomly allocated into group A and B. Group A were the patients in which midline abdominal wound closure was done with small bites and group B were the patients in which midline abdominal wound closure was done with large bites. Then the patients were followed up for 6 months to observe any complications.Results: A mean additional closure time of 9 minutes was seen with the small bites technique. The mean suture length was more in small bites group as compared to large bites technique. There was no difference in the visual analog scale score between the two groups. No significant difference was seen in the incidence of major and minor wound infection postoperatively in both the groups. Small bites technique reduced the incidence of suture sinus and incisional hernia compared to conventional large bites technique.Conclusions: It can be concluded that the small bites suture technique is more effective than the traditional large bites technique for prevention of all post-operative complications.

Comparison of efficacy of large tissue bites versus small tissue bites for midline abdominal wound closure

Background: Incisional hernia is common complication after median laparotomy, with reported incidence varying between 2% and 20%. For prevention of incisional hernia, many clinical trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated that mass closure technique with simple running suture is good option to close midline incision. An attempt was made in this study to compare efficacy of large tissue bites vs small tissue bites for midline abdominal wound closure.Methods: Three hundred thirty patients admitted for midline laparotomy were randomized into Group A, and Group B. Group A, and Group B patients underwent abdominal closure by small bites technique, and large bites technique respectively. Patients were followed at 7th postoperative day, 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months. Primary outcome measures were incidence of incisional hernia, incidence of postoperative complications like post-operative pain, surgical site infections, wound dehiscence whereas, secondary outcome measure was fascial closure time. Inter-group comparison of categorical, and continuous variables was done using Chi-square test/Fisher’s exact test and unpaired ‘t’ test respectively.Results: Incidence of incisional hernia was significantly higher in large bites suture technique compared to small bites suture technique at 12 months follow up. Mean time required for fascial closure time was significantly higher in small bite group compared to large bite group. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative pain, surgical site infections, and wound dehiscence among the two groups.Conclusions: The rate of incisional hernia was lower in small bites technique compared with large bites technique in midline abdominal incisions.

Consenso para la apertura y cierre de laparotomía media supra-infraumbilical utilizando metodología Delphi / Midline laparotomy technique consensus using the Delphi method

INTRODUCCIÓN: Una de las vías de acceso a la cavidad abdominal es la laparotomía media, siendo uno de los riesgos más temidos las complicaciones postoperatorias, las cuales pueden disminuirse con difusión de una adecuada técnica quirúrgica. OBJETIVO: Generar un consenso de expertos con pasos clave para realizar una laparotomía media supra-infraumbilical, a través de la metodología Delphi. MATERIALES Y MÉTODO: Por medio de una revisión de la literatura se extrajo el detalle de 37 pasos considerados en el procedimiento, organizado en secciones de preparación, apertura y cierre, siendo evaluados por un grupo de cirujanos de 7 hospitales docentes de Chile, mediante una encuesta online. RESULTADOS: El consenso se alcanzó en dos rondas, con 28 de los 37 pasos extraídos de la literatura, considerados importantes o muy importantes para la enseñanza de la técnica. Discusión: De los 28 pasos identificados como importantes, existe un alto grado de acuerdo para la preparación y apertura de una laparotomía, a diferencia del cierre en el cual no se observa una preferencia clara entre el cierre en una o varias capas entre el peritoneo y la fascia, debiendo analizarse en cada caso específico. CONCLUSIÓN: La identificación de 28 pasos estandarizados constituye un aporte en los programas de formación de residentes y en el desarrollo de modelos de simulación adecuados para la replicación del procedimiento. El aprendizaje correcto de la técnica basado en evidencia es fundamental para disminuir el riesgo de complicaciones asociadas, especialmente en el postoperatorio.

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, the main surgical technique to access the abdominal cavity has been midline incision laparotomy, being postoperative complications a main concern. Proper teaching-learning methods could help improving the success of this procedure. AIM: Establish an expert's consensus throughout the Delphi Methodology regarding the main steps that need to be considered in a midline laparotomy. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Literature review was conducted, 37 steps were identified and grouped in 3 sections; preparation of the skin, opening incision, and closure. These steps were evaluated online by surgeons of 7 teaching hospitals in Chile. RESULTS: Consensus was reached in two rounds, 28 of the 37 steps were identified as important or very important for the procedure. DISCUSSION: There is a high level of agreement in steps related to preparation of the skin and opening incision. However, there is not a consensus regarding closure of the peritoneum and fascia in one or more layers, being a case to case decision. CONCLUSIONS: Establishment of 28 standardized steps constitutes a contribution to resident teaching programs and the development of simulation materials as an active learning strategy. Satisfactory learning outcomes have a direct impact in the success of the procedure and a lower rate of complications.