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

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
pp. 2534
Author(s):  
Nicolo Tamini ◽  
Marco Cereda ◽  
Giulia Capelli ◽  
Alessandro Giani ◽  
Luca Gianotti
Keyword(s):  
Incisional Hernia ◽  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Abdominal Wall ◽  
Data Retrieval ◽  
Fascial Closure ◽  
Skin Closure ◽  
Absorbable Suture ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Abdominal Wall Closure ◽  
Midline Laparotomy

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.

scholarly journals Hernia reduction following laparotomy using small stitch abdominal wall closure with and without mesh augmentation (the HULC trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Heger ◽  
Manuel Feißt ◽  
Johannes Krisam ◽  
Christina Klose ◽  
Colette Dörr-Harim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Abdominal Wall ◽  
Fascial Closure ◽  
Abdominal Wall Closure ◽  
Midline Laparotomy ◽  
Incisional Hernias ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Onlay Technique ◽  
Mesh Augmentation ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Incisional hernias are among the most frequent complications following abdominal surgery and cause substantial morbidity, impaired health-related quality of life and costs. Despite improvements in abdominal wall closure techniques, the risk for developing an incisional hernia is reported to be between 10 and 30% following midline laparotomies. There have been two recent innovations with promising results to reduce hernia risks, namely the small stitches technique and the placement of a prophylactic mesh. So far, these two techniques have not been evaluated in combination. Methods The HULC trial is a multicentre, randomized controlled, observer- and patient-blinded surgical effectiveness trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 812 patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery via a midline laparotomy will be randomized in 12 centres after informed consent. Patients will be randomly assigned to the control group receiving closure of the midline incision with a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in the small stitches technique or to the intervention group, who will receive a small stitches closure followed by augmentation with a light-weight polypropylene mesh in the onlay technique. The primary endpoint will be the occurrence of incisional hernias, as defined by the European Hernia Society, within 24 months after surgery. Further perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes. Discussion The HULC trial will address the yet unanswered question of whether a combination of small stitched fascial closure and onlay mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomies reduces the risk of incisional hernias. The HULC trial marks the logical and innovative next step in the development of a safe abdominal closure technique. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00017517. Registered on 24th June 2019.

The Impact of Mesh Reinforcement with Components Separation for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

2018 ◽  
Vol 84 (6) ◽  
pp. 959-962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyed Amirhossein Razavi ◽  
Karan A. Desai ◽  
Alexandra M. Hart ◽  
Peter W. Thompson ◽  
Albert Losken
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Abdominal Wall ◽  
Recurrence Rate ◽  
Abdominal Wall Reconstruction ◽  
Abdominal Hernia ◽  
Fascial Closure ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Components Separation ◽  
The Impact

The goal in abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) is to minimize morbidity and prevent hernia recurrence. Components separation and mesh reconstruction are two options, however, with advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this review was to investigate outcomes in patients with abdominal wall hernia undergoing primary closure with component separation (CS) versus CS with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) reinforcement (CS + mesh). Medical records of consecutive patients who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction using CS with or without ADM reinforcement were retrospectively reviewed. Primary fascial closure was achieved in all patients. ADM reinforcement when used was performed using the underlay technique. Reconstructive technique and postoperative complications including delayed healing, skin necrosis, fistula, seroma, hematoma and surgical site infection, recurrence, and reoperation were recorded. Comparisons between the two groups were assessed. One hundred and seven patients were included (mean age, 55.7; 51.4% male; median follow-up 297 days). Twenty-six patients (24%) underwent CS alone; whereas 81 patients (76%) CS + mesh placement. Patient comorbidities, including smoking (26%), diabetes (20%), and hypertension (46%); body mass index (mean 32.3 ± 7.6); and albumin level on the day of surgery (mean 3.4 ± 0.5 mg/dL) were not significantly different between groups. Surgical site infection was significantly higher among CS + mesh patients (22.2%) versus CS only patients (3.9%) (P = 0.02). The recurrence rate of abdominal hernia was significantly lower in CS + mesh patients compared with CS only (14.8% vs 34.6%; P = 0.02). No significant differences in other postoperative complications were identified between the two groups. ADM reinforcement at the time of components separation is often selected in more complex, higher risk patients. Although the incidence of infection was higher in these patients, it was usually treated without mesh removal and recurrence rate was significantly lower when compared to CS alone.

scholarly journals Abdominal incision defect following AAA-surgery (AIDA): 2-year results of prophylactic onlay-mesh augmentation in a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Honig ◽  
H. Diener ◽  
T. Kölbel ◽  
W. Reinpold ◽  
A. Zapf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Incisional Hernia ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Fascial Closure ◽  
Absorbable Suture ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Midline Laparotomy ◽  
Mesh Augmentation ◽  
Onlay Mesh ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractThe reported incidence of incisional hernia following repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) via midline laparotomy is up to 69%. This prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomised controlled trial was conducted at eleven hospitals in Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older undergoing elective AAA-repair via midline incision were randomly assigned using a computer-generated randomisation sequence to one of three groups for fascial closure: with long-term absorbable suture (MonoPlus®, group I), long-term absorbable suture and onlay mesh reinforcement (group II) or extra long-term absorbable suture (MonoMax®, group III). The primary endpoint was the incidence of incisional hernia within 24 months of follow-up, analysed by intention to treat. Physicians conducting the postoperative visits and the patients were blinded. Between February 2011 and July 2013, 104 patients (69.8 ± 7.7 years) were randomised, 99 of them received a study intervention. The rate of incisional hernia within 24 months was not significantly reduced with onlay mesh augmentation compared to primary suture (p = 0.290). Furthermore, the rate of incisional hernia did not differ significantly between fascial closure with slow and extra long-term absorbable suture (p = 0.111). Serious adverse events related to study intervention occurred in five patients (5.1%) from treatment groups II and III. Wound healing disorders were more frequently seen after onlay mesh implantation on the day of discharge (p = 0.010) and three (p = 0.009) and six (p = 0.023) months postoperatively. The existing evidence on prophylactic mesh augmentation in patients undergoing AAA-repair via midline laparotomy probably needs critical review. As the implementation of new RCTs is considered difficult due to the increasing number of endovascular AAA treated, registry studies could help to collect and evaluate data in cases of open AAA-repair. Comparisons between prophylactic mesh implantation and the small bite technique are also required. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01353443. Funding Sources: Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany.

scholarly journals Technique of Midline Abdominal Incision Closure Among Surgical Trainees

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-75
Author(s):  
Alex Muturi ◽  
Kotecha Vihar ◽  
Pulei Ann ◽  
Maseghe Philip
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Wall ◽  
Anterior Abdominal Wall ◽  
Tertiary Hospital ◽  
Fascial Closure ◽  
Wound Complications ◽  
Absorbable Suture ◽  
Abdominal Wall Closure ◽  
Abdominal Incision ◽  
Abdominal Closure ◽  
Surgical Trainees

Background: Technique of anterior abdominal wall closure (AAWC) determines wound-related surgical complications. Residents in obstetrics and gynecology and surgery departments perform most midline abdominal wall closure; data is lacking on how it is being done. This study identifies abdominal wall closure techniques used. Methods: A descriptive study was carried out from October 2015 to May 2016. Results: 71 (35 surgical, 36 ObGyn) residents completed a self-administered questionnaire. Knowledge of midline abdominal closure was acquired from medical officers (58.6%) or consultants before residency (28.6%). Absorbable suture was preferred for clean wounds by 75% of residents; 70% used size 1 suture for fascial closure. Most residents (95.7%) closed fascia in clean wound by continuous suturing. Interrupted suturing was preferred in contaminated and dirty wounds. Half of the residents in both groups would close skin in contaminated wounds, while 16% of surgery and 9.4% ObGyn will close skin in dirty wounds. Conclusion: Inconsistencies exist in anterior abdominal wall closure between groups of residents despite presence of clear guidelines. It is important to harmonize training on AAWC at the tertiary hospital. Keywords: Abdominal closure, Midline incision, Wound complications

scholarly journals Hernia reduction following laparotomy using small stitch abdominal wall closure with and without mesh augmentation (the HULC trial, DRKS00017517): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Heger ◽  
Manuel Feißt ◽  
Johannes Krisam ◽  
Christina Klose ◽  
Colette Dörr-Harim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Abdominal Wall ◽  
Fascial Closure ◽  
Abdominal Wall Closure ◽  
Midline Laparotomy ◽  
Incisional Hernias ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Onlay Technique ◽  
Mesh Augmentation ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Incisional hernias are among the most frequent complications following abdominal surgery and cause substantial morbidity, impaired health-related quality of life and costs. Despite improvements in abdominal wall closure techniques incisional hernia rates are reported to be between 10-30% following midline laparotomies. There have been two recent innovations with promising results to reduce hernia rates, namely the small stitches technique and the placement of a prophylactic mesh. So far, these two techniques have not been evaluated in combination.Methods The HULC trial is a multicentre randomized controlled, observer and patient blinded surgical effectiveness trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 812 patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery via a midline laparotomy will be randomized in 12 centres after informed consent. Patients will be randomly assigned to the control group receiving closure of the midline incision with a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in small stitches technique or to the intervention group that will receive a small stitches closure followed by augmentation with a light-weight polypropylen mesh in onlay technique. The primary endpoint will be the occurrence of incisional hernias as defined by the European Hernia Society within 24 months after surgery. Further perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes.Discussion The HULC trial will address the yet unanswered question whether a combination of small stitched fascial closure and onlay mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomies reduces the rate of incisional hernias. The HULC trial marks the logical and innovative next step in the development of a safe abdominal closure technique.

scholarly journals A prospective study in peritonitis patients to compare the impact of subcutaneous negative suction closure, conventional primary closure of skin and subcutaneous tissue and open skin technique following laparotomy

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 3293
Author(s):  
Mano Zac Mathews ◽  
Sriram Gopalakrishnaiah Subramanyam ◽  
Nivedita Mitta
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Abdominal Wall ◽  
Subcutaneous Tissue ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Abdominal Wall Closure ◽  
Suction Drain ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Negative Suction

Background: Abdominal wall closure in the presence of sepsis presents a challenge to the surgeon. The objective of this study is to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each method to individualise the techniques based on patient profile about surgical site infection, duration of hospitalisation and morbidity.Methods: A prospective comparative study was conducted among 102 operated patients of peritonitis in the Department of General Surgery at St John’s Medical College and Hospital. The patients were divided into three groups, group A, group B and group C. In group A, skin and subcutaneous tissue was closed after draining the subcutaneous space by a negative-suction drain. In group B, the patient’s skin and subcutaneous tissues were closed primarily with continuous sutures without negative suction drain. In group C, the laparotomy wound was closed and the skin was left open. And the outcome compared in the form of wound infection, hospital stay and morbidity. Patients on immunosuppressive therapy and paediatric patients were excluded. Demographic and clinical variables were recorded at the time of admission. SPSS version 18 was used for analysis.Results: The study showed male preponderance and the mean age was 43.2 years. Duodenal perforation was the commonest cause of peritonitis in this study (38.2%). Incidence of surgical site infection was less in Group A (20.6%) compared to group B (52.9%) and group C (29.4%). Duration of hospital stay was also less in Group A patients (9.3±3.6 days) compared to other two groups. 37 patients who were included in the study were diabetic, out of which 25 patients (67.6%) developed surgical site infection.Conclusions: It can be concluded from this study that abdominal wall closure using a sub cutaneous negative suction drain in peritonitis cases reduces the incidence of surgical site infection, duration of hospital stays, subsequent surgeries related to wound dehiscence and its associated morbidity.  

scholarly journals Surgical-site infection after abdominal wall closure with triclosan-impregnated polydioxanone sutures: Results of a randomized clinical pathway facilitated trial (NCT00998907)

Surgery ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 154 (3) ◽  
pp. 589-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Justinger ◽  
Jan Erik Slotta ◽  
Sebastian Ningel ◽  
Stefan Gräber ◽  
Otto Kollmar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Abdominal Wall ◽  
Clinical Pathway ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Abdominal Wall Closure

scholarly journals P107 PREVENTION OF INCISIONAL HERNIA AFTER MIDLINE LAPAROTOMY WITH MODIFICATION OF CLOSURE TECHNIQUE: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Edgard Efren Lozada Hernandez ◽  
Juan Pablo Hernandez Bonilla ◽  
Enrique Obregon Moreno ◽  
Diego Hinojosa Ugarte ◽  
Aldo Jimenez Herevia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Incisional Hernia ◽  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Wound Dehiscence ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Closure Technique ◽  
Midline Laparotomy ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Aim “Incisional hernia is the main complication after laparotomy, the prevention of this is currently aimed at preoperative rehabilitation, modification of the closure technique and the use of prophylactic mesh. The objective of the study was to measure the effectiveness of the modification in the laparotomy closure technique to reduce the incidence of incisional hernia.” Material and Methods “A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out following the PRISMA guidelines. The first objective was to determine the incidence of incisional hernia at one year of follow-up, comparing the modification in the closure technique with the usual closure. The secondary objective was to determine the difference in wound dehiscence and surgical site infection between these two groups. Only clinical trials were included, and the random effects method was used for their analysis. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021231107” Results “Seven clinical trials were included, comparing 1612 patients, the incidence of incisional hernia was significantly lower in the surgical technique modification group OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.38-79). Efficacy to reduce the incidence of wound dehiscence was also analyzed without finding a difference between the two groups OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.27-1.21). There was no statistically significant difference between both groups when comparing seroma hematoma and surgical site infection.” Conclusions “The modification in the laparotomy closure technique reduces the incidence of incisional hernia. However, when analyzing globally, only the Small bites and Reinforced tension line techniques contributed to this result.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document