Abdominal fascia closure following elective midline laparotomy: a surgical experience at a tertiary care hospital in Tanzania

BMC Research Notes

Joseph B Mabula²  Albert Kihunrwa¹  Anthony N Massinde¹  Phillipo L Chalya² 

[1] Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences-Bugando, Mwanza, Tanzania;Department of Surgery, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences-Bugando, Mwanza, Tanzania

关键词: Tanzania;    Postoperative complications;    Practices;    Abdominal fascial closure;    Elective midline laparotomy;   

Others  :  1231623
DOI  :  10.1186/s13104-015-1243-4

 received in 2015-01-19, accepted in 2015-06-17,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The optimal strategy of abdominal wall closure after midline laparotomy has remained an issue of ongoing debate. This study was undertaken to describe our own experiences with abdominal fascial closure following elective midline laparotomy and compare with what is described in literature.

Methods

This was a descriptive prospective study of patients who underwent elective midline laparotomy at Bugando Medical Centre between March 2009 and February 2014.

Results

A total of 872 patients (M:F = 2.8:1) were studied. The median age was 38 years. The fascia closure was performed with a continuous and interrupted sutures in 804 (92.2%) and 68 (7.8%) patients, respectively. Mass closure and layered closure were performed in 842 (96.6%) and 30 (3.4%) patients, respectively. Monofilament sutures were applied for fascia closure in 366 (42.0%) patients, multifilament sutures in 506 (58.0%) patients. Non-absorbable sutures were chosen in 304 (34.9%) patients, slowly absorbable sutures in 506 (58.0%), and moderately absorbable sutures in 62 (7.1%) patients. Sutures used for fascial closure were vicryl 464 (53.2%), nylon 250 (28.7%), prolene 62 (7.1%), PDSII 54 (6.2%) and silk 42 (4.8%). Sutures with the strength of 0 were used in 214 (24.4%) patients, with strength of 1 in 524 (60.1%) patients, and with strength of 2 in 134 (15.4%) patients. The mean time required for massive closure of the midline incision was 8.20 ± 6.12 min whereas in layered closure, the mean time required for closure was 12.22 ± 7.11 min and this was statistically significant (p = 0.002). Mass closure was significantly associated with low incidence of wound dehiscence and incisional hernia (p < 0.001). Continuous suture was significantly associated with low incidence of wound dehiscence and incisional hernia as compared to interrupted suture (p < 0.001). Non-absorbable sutures were significantly associated with increased incidence of persistent wound pain and stitch sinus as compared to absorbable sutures (p < 0.001). The use of monofilament sutures was insignificantly associated with low incidence of surgical site infection as compared to multifilament sutures (p = 0.051). Prolene was significantly associated with persistent wound pain as compared to vicryl (p = 0.017).

Conclusion

Continuous mass closure with vicryl is commonly used for abdominal fascial closure following elective midline laparotomy in our setting and gives satisfactory results.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Chalya et al.

【 图 表 】

Figure1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Israelsson LA, Millbourn D: Closing midline abdominal incisions. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2012, 397:1201-1207.
• [2]Nahai F, Brown RG, Vasconez LO: Blood supply to the abdominal wall as related to planning abdominal incisions. Am J Surg 1976, 42:691-695.
• [3]Ellis H, Bucknall TE, Cox PJ: Abdominal incisions and their closure. Curr Probl Surg 1985, 22:1-51.
• [4]Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, Büchler MW, Seiler CM: Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2010, 251:843-856.
• [5]Seiler CM, Bruckner T, Diener MK, Papyan A, Golcher H, Seidlmayer C, et al.: Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions: a multicenter randomized trial (INSECT: ISRCTN24023541). Ann Surg 2007, 249:576-582.
• [6]Chawla S: A comparison between mass closure and layered closure of midline abdominal incisions. Med J Dr DY Patil Univ 2012, 5:26-27.
• [7]Komba (2012) Practices of abdominal fascial closure and related complications following Elective midline laparotomy at Muhimbili National Hospital. Dissertation for M. Med (MUHAS), pp 26–28
• [8]Knaebel HP, Koch M, Sauerland S, Diener MK, Büchler MW, Seiler CM: INSECT Study Group of the Study Centre of the German Surgical Society: Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures, Multi-centre randomized trial to evaluate abdominal closure technique INSECT-Trial. BMC Surg 2005, 5:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Ceydeli A, Rucinski J, Wise L: Finding the best abdominal closure: an evidence-based review of the literature. J Curr Surg 2005, 62:220-225.
• [10]Weiland DE, Bay RC, Del Sordi S: Choosing the best abdominal closure by meta-analysis. Am J Surg 1998, 76:666-670.
• [11]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, 89:1350-1356.
• [12]Hodgson NC, Malthaner RA, Ostbye T: The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2000, 231:436-442.
• [13]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. Indian J Surg 2004, 66:19-27.
• [14]Gupta H, Srivastava A, Menon GR, Agrawal CS, Chumber S, Kumar S: Comparison of interrupted versus continuous closure in abdominal wound repair: a meta-analysis of 23 trials. Asian J Surg 2008, 31:104-114.
• [15]Gislason H, Gronbech JE, Soreide O: Burst abdomen and incisional hernia after major gastrointestinal operations—comparison of three closure techniques. Eur J Surg 1995, 161:349-354.
• [16]Anderson ER, Gates S: Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section (Review). Cochrane Collab 2007.
• [17]Bucknall TE, Teare L, Ellis H: The choice of a suture to close abdominal incisions. Euro Surg Res 1983, 15:59-66.
• [18]Osterberg B: Enclosure of bacteria within capillary multifilament sutures as protection against leukocytes. Acta chir Scand 1983, 149:663-668.
• [19]Rahbari N, Knebel P, Diener M, Seiler C: Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery—is there any consensus? Ann Surg 2009, 249:576-582.