CLOSURE OF ELECTIVE ABDOMINAL INCISIONS WITH MONOFILAMENT, NON-ABSORBABLE SUTURE MATERIAL VERSUS POLYFILAMENT ABSORBABLE SUTURE MATERIAL
AbstractBackground: Closure of abdominal incisions with different suture materials has been a matter of greatcontroversy. Polypropylene and Polylactide with Polyglycolide are among the commonest suturematerials used for closure of abdominal incisions. Objectives of this study were to assess optimal suturematerial used for closure of elective abdominal incisions and to see complications associated with thesesuture materials. Methods: This prospective, comparative, randomised study was conducted at publicand private sector hospitals of Nawabshah and Hyderabad from 1st Jan 2005 to 31st October 2009. Allpatients who underwent abdominal surgery under the investigators’ supervision were included in thestudy. Patients were divided into 2 groups on even or odd numbers. In group-A patients’ incision wasclosed with monofilament, non-absorbable Polypropylene (Prolene) No. 1 suture material and in groupB incision was closed with Polyfilament, absorbable, co-polymer of Polylactide with Polyglycolide(Vicryle) No. 1. Results: A total 274 patients were finally analysed for closure of elective abdominalincisions, with 138 (50.4%) patients in Group-A and 136 (49.6%) patients in Group-B. Vicryle wasfound superior in knot security and suture handling. Superficial wound infection was found in 5.79%patients of Group-A and 6.61% of Group-B. Discharging sinus was found in 3.62% of Group-A vs0.73% of Group-B. Burst abdomen was seen in 2.17% patients in Group-A and 1.47% in Group-B.Incisional hernia was present in 4.34% of Group-A and 0.73% patients of Group-B. No patient inGroup-B developed persistent pain at incisional site while it was found in 8.69% patients of Group-A.Conclusion: Polylactide is an optimal suture material in closure of elective abdominal incisions.Keywords: elective, incisions, monofilament, polyfilament, suture, postoperative, complications
Conze J, Klinge U, Schumpelick V. Incisional Hernia. Chirurg
Leaper DJ, Winslet MC. Basic surgical skills and anastomosis.
In: Bailey and Love’s Short Practice of Surgery. 24th Ed. 2004,
Vol. 1, pp. 98–9, 1186–90.
Kirk RM, Williamson RCN. Laparotomy; elective and
emergency. In: Krik RM, (Ed). General surgical operations, 4th
Ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000, 81–6, 89–92.
Johnstone JMS, Rintoul RF. Abdominal surgery: access and
procedures. In: Farquharsons Textbook of Operative Surgery. 8th
Edition. UK: Churchill Livingstone; 1995. p.338–40.
Cusheri A. Disorders of abdominal wall and peritoneal cavity. In:
Cusheri A, Steele RJC, Moosa AB, editors. Essential Surgical
Practice. 4th ed. London: Arnold; 2002. p. 143–82.
Weiland DE, Bay RC, Del Sordi S. Choosing the best abdominal
closure by meta- analysis. Am J Surg 1998;176:666–70.
Rucinski J, Margolis M, Panagopoulos G, Wise L. Closure of
midline abdominal fascia. Meta-analysis delineates the optimal
technique. Am Surg 2001;67(5):421–6.
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2011;23(2)
Yahchonchy-Chonillard E, Aura T, Piccone O, Etienne JC,
Fingerhut A. Incisional hernia, Related risk factors. Dig Surg
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
Ceydeli A, Rucinski J, Wise L, Finding the best abdominal
closure: An evidenced-based review of the literature. Curr Surg
Van’t Riet M, Steyerberg EW, Nellensteyn J, Bonjer HJ, Jeekel
J. Meta-Analysis of technique for closure of midline abdominal
incisions. Br J Surg 2002;89:1350–6.
Choudhary SK, Choudhary SD. Mass closure vs. layered closure
of abdominal wound: a prospective clinical study. J Indian Med
McLean S, Kreamer B. Wound care and healing. The
Washington manual of Surgery, 3rd Edi. USA: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins; 2002.p. 176–7.
Hodgson NC, Mathaner RA, Ostbye T. The search for an ideal
method of an abdominal fascia closure, a meta-Analysis. Ann
Gys T, Hubens A. A prospective, comparative clinical study
between monofilament absorbable and non-absorbable sutures
for abdominal wall closure. Acta Chir Belg 1989;89:265–70.