Design and current status of CONTINT: continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy - a randomized controlled multicenter trial [NCT00544583]

Continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy: CONTINT: a randomized controlled trial [NCT00544583]

BACKGROUND

High-level evidence regarding the technique of abdominal wall closure for patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy is sparse. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two commonly applied abdominal wall closure strategies after primary emergency midline laparotomy.

METHODS/DESIGN

CONTINT was a multi-center pragmatic open-label exploratory randomized controlled parallel trial. Two different abdominal wall closure strategies in patients undergoing primary midline laparotomy for an emergency surgical intervention with a suspected septic focus in the abdominal cavity were compared: the continuous, all-layer suture and the interrupted suture technique. The primary composite endpoint was burst abdomen within 30 days after surgery or incisional hernia within 12 months. As reliable data on this composite primary endpoint were not available for patients undergoing emergency surgery, it was planned to initially recruit 80 patients and conduct an interim analysis after these had completed the 12 months follow-up.

RESULTS

From August 31, 2009, to June 28, 2012, 124 patients were randomized of whom 119 underwent surgery and were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principal. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between the continuous suture (C: 27.1%) and the interrupted suture group (I: 30.0%). None of the individual components of the primary endpoint (reoperation due to burst abdomen after 30 days (C: 13.5%, I: 15.1%) and reoperation due to incisional hernia (C: 3.0%, I:11.1%)) differed between groups. Time needed for fascial closure was longer in the interrupted suture group (C: 12.8 ± 4.5 min, I: 17.4 ± 6.1 min). BMI was associated with burst abdomen during the first 30 days with an OR of 1.17 (95% CI 1.04-1.32).

CONCLUSION

This RCT showed no difference between continuous suture with slowly absorbable suture versus interrupted rapidly absorbable sutures after primary emergency midline laparotomy in rates of postoperative burst abdomen and incisional hernia after one year. However, the trial was stopped after the interim analysis due to futility as there was no chance to show superiority of one suture technique.

Continuous and interrupted abdominal-wall closure after primary emergency midline laparotomy (CONIAC-trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled single centre trial

INTRODUCTION

The optimal closure of the abdominal wall after emergency midline laparotomy is still a matter of debate due to lack of evidence. Although closure of the fascia using a continuous, all-layer suture technique with slowly absorbable monofilament material is common, complications like burst abdomen and hernia are frequent.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation evaluates the efficacy and safety of a continuous suture with or without additional interrupted retention sutures for closure of the abdominal fascia. Patients with an indication for a primary emergency midline laparotomy are eligible to participate in this study and will be randomised intraoperatively via block randomisation. Fascia closure in the intervention group will be done with a standard continuous suture with slowly absorbable monofilament material (MonoMax 1, B. Braun, Tuttlingen, Germany) and additional interrupted retention sutures every 2 cm of the fascia using rapidly absorbable braided material (Vicryl 2, Ethicon, Norderstedt, Germany). In the control group, the fascia is closed only with the standard continuous suture with slowly absorbable monofilament material. Sample size calculations (n=111 per study arm) are based on the available literature. The primary endpoint is the rate of dehiscence of the abdominal fascia (rate of burst abdomen within 30 days or rate of incisional hernia within 12 months). Secondary endpoints are wound infections, quality of life, length of hospital stay, morbidity and mortality. Patients as well as individuals involved in data collection, endpoint assessment, data analysis and quality of life assessment will be blinded.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol, the patient information and the informed consent form have been approved by the ethics committee of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany (reference number: 20-1041). Study findings will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00024802.

WHO UNIVERSAL TRIAL NUMBER

U1111-1259-1956.

Incisional hernia following colorectal cancer surgery according to suture technique: Hughes Abdominal Repair Randomized Trial (HART)

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernias cause morbidity and may require further surgery. HART (Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial) assessed the effect of an alternative suture method on the incidence of incisional hernia following colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A pragmatic multicentre single-blind RCT allocated patients undergoing midline incision for colorectal cancer to either Hughes closure (double far-near-near-far sutures of 1 nylon suture at 2-cm intervals along the fascia combined with conventional mass closure) or the surgeon's standard closure. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernia at 1 year assessed by clinical examination. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Between August 2014 and February 2018, 802 patients were randomized to either Hughes closure (401) or the standard mass closure group (401). At 1 year after surgery, 672 patients (83.7 per cent) were included in the primary outcome analysis; 50 of 339 patients (14.8 per cent) in the Hughes group and 57 of 333 (17.1 per cent) in the standard closure group had incisional hernia (OR 0.84, 95 per cent c.i. 0.55 to 1.27; P = 0.402). At 2 years, 78 patients (28.7 per cent) in the Hughes repair group and 84 (31.8 per cent) in the standard closure group had incisional hernia (OR 0.86, 0.59 to 1.25; P = 0.429). Adverse events were similar in the two groups, apart from the rate of surgical-site infection, which was higher in the Hughes group (13.2 versus 7.7 per cent; OR 1.82, 1.14 to 2.91; P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of incisional hernia after colorectal cancer surgery is high. There was no statistical difference in incidence between Hughes closure and mass closure at 1 or 2 years.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN25616490 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Hughes abdominal closure versus standard mass closure to reduce incisional hernias following surgery for colorectal cancer: the HART RCT

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernias can cause chronic pain and complications and affect quality of life. Surgical repair requires health-care resources and has a significant associated failure rate. A prospective, multicentre, single-blinded randomised controlled trial was conducted to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Hughes abdominal closure method compared with standard mass closure following surgery for colorectal cancer. The study randomised, in a 1 : 1 ratio, 802 adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) undergoing surgical resection for colorectal cancer from 28 surgical departments in UK centres.

INTERVENTION

Hughes abdominal closure or standard mass closure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year, as assessed by clinical examination. Within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses over 1 year were conducted from an NHS and a social care perspective. A key secondary outcome was quality of life, and other outcomes included the incidence of incisional hernias as detected by computed tomography scanning.

RESULTS

The incidence of incisional hernia at 1-year clinical examination was 50 (14.8%) in the Hughes abdominal closure arm compared with 57 (17.1%) in the standard mass closure arm (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.27; p = 0.4). In year 2, the incidence of incisional hernia was 78 (28.7%) in the Hughes abdominal closure arm compared with 84 (31.8%) in the standard mass closure arm (odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.25; p = 0.43). Computed tomography scanning identified a total of 301 incisional hernias across both arms, compared with 100 identified by clinical examination at the 1-year follow-up. Computed tomography scanning missed 16 incisional hernias that were picked up by clinical examination. Hughes abdominal closure was found to be less cost-effective than standard mass closure. The mean incremental cost for patients undergoing Hughes abdominal closure was £616.45 (95% confidence interval -£699.56 to £1932.47; p = 0.3580). Quality of life did not differ significantly between the study arms at any time point.

LIMITATIONS

As this was a pragmatic trial, the control arm allowed surgeon discretion in the approach to standard mass closure, introducing variability in the techniques and equipment used. Intraoperative randomisation may result in a loss of equipoise for some surgeons. Follow-up was limited to 2 years, which may not have been enough time to see a difference in the primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Hughes abdominal closure did not significantly reduce the incidence of incisional hernias detected by clinical examination and was less cost-effective at 1 year than standard mass closure in colorectal cancer patients. Computed tomography scanning may be more effective at identifying incisional hernias than clinical examination, but the clinical benefit of this needs further research.

FUTURE WORK

An extended follow-up using routinely collected NHS data sets aims to report on incisional hernia rates at 2-5 years post surgery to investigate any potential mortality benefit of the closure methods. Furthermore, the proportion of incisional hernias identified by a computed tomography scan (at 1 and 2 years post surgery), but not during clinical examination (occult hernias), proceeding to surgical repair within 3-5 years after the initial operation will be explored.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN25616490.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Risk factors for incisional hernia according to different wound sites after open hepatectomy using combinations of vertical and horizontal incisions: A multicenter cohort study

Background: Although several risk factors for incisional hernia after hepatectomy have been reported, their relationship to different wound sites has not been investigated. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the risk factors for incisional hernia according to various wound sites after hepatectomy. Methods: Patients from the Osaka Liver Surgery Study Group who underwent open hepatectomy using combinations of vertical and horizontal incisions (J-shaped incision, reversed L-shaped incision, reversed T-shaped incision, Mercedes incision) between January 2012 and December 2015 were included. Incisional hernia was defined as a hernia occurring within 3 y after surgery. Abdominal incisional hernia was classified into midline incisional hernia and transverse incisional hernia. The risk factors for each posthepatectomy incisional hernia type were identified. Results: A total of 1057 patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall posthepatectomy incisional hernia incidence rate was 5.9% (62 patients). In the multivariate analysis, the presence of diabetes mellitus and albumin levels <3.5 g/dL were identified as independent risk factors. Moreover, incidence rates of midline and transverse incisional hernias were 2.4% (25 patients), and 2.3% (24 patients), respectively. In multivariate analysis, the independent risk factor for transverse incisional hernia was the occurrence of superficial or deep incisional surgical site infection, and interrupted suturing for midline incisional hernia. Conclusions: Risk factors for incisional hernia after hepatectomy depend on the wound site. To prevent incisional hernia, running suture use might be better for midline wound closure. The prevention of postoperative wound infection is important for transverse wounds, under the presumption of preoperative nutrition and normoglycemia.

PREVENTION OF POSTOPERATIVE VENTRAL HERNIAS AND PREDICTORS OF HERNIATION

The issue of predicting and preventing postoperative ventral hernias is relevant. 450 patients were examined to identify and determine the significance of risk factors, and 71 patients underwent MRI of the anterior abdominal wall to assess the morphology of the anterior abdominal wall. Large and small predictors of herniation are identified. MRI revealed aponeurosis defects that are not physically determined, which is a high risk of postoperative ventral hernias. Based on the risk level of postoperative ventral hernias, their surgical prevention was performed. Patients at low risk should undergo laparorrhaphy with a staggered strengthening suture, at high risk - preventive using a mesh prosthesis, and if it is impossible - laparorrhaphy using a thread from a mesh polypropylene implant according to the developed technique.

Wound dehiscence with continuous versus interrupted mass closure of transverse incisions in children with absorbable suture: a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Numerous meta-analyses done on adults suggest superiority of continuous mass closure technique, but any such study does not exist for the pediatric age group. The results in adults cannot be applied to pediatrics because of numerous physiologic and anatomic differences.

Methods

This is a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial, 1:1 parallel groups, that compares the frequency of dehiscence between the interrupted and continuous mass closure techniques for transverse incisions in pediatric patients. The age range was from birth to 12 years. We sampled 350 patients undergoing emergency or elective exploratory laparotomies in our pediatric surgery unit. Blocked randomization was used and only the patients remained blinded during the intervention. One group was closed with interrupted mass closure (group A) and the other group with continuous mass closure technique (group B). We had to drop 50 patients for not meeting the inclusion criteria.

Results

The wound dehiscence rate for group A was 1.34% (4 patients) and for group B was 3.0% (9 patients). Significance was calculated using χ2 (p<0.156). The global wound dehiscence rate was 4.34% (13 patients). The maximum number of patients dehisced on the fifth postoperative day, while the range was 4–11 days. The only statistically significant confounding factor was wound classification (p<0.002).

Discussion

Statistically there is no significant difference between interrupted and continuous mass closures techniques in terms of wound dehiscence. The dirty wounds are at a maximum risk of developing wound dehiscence irrespective of the technique used. We need to strictly adhere to the basic principles of closure especially when dealing with dirty wounds.

Trial registration number

TCTR20150318001.

Meta-analysis on Materials and Techniques for Laparotomy Closure: The MATCH Review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate closure materials and suture techniques for emergency and elective laparotomies. The primary outcome was incisional hernia after 12 months, and the secondary outcomes were burst abdomen and surgical site infection.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted until September 2017. The quality of the RCTs was evaluated by at least 3 assessors using critical appraisal checklists. Meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 23 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. There was no evidence from RCTs using the same suture technique in both study arms that any suture material (fast-absorbable/slowly absorbable/non-absorbable) is superior in reducing incisional hernias. There is no evidence that continuous suturing is superior in reducing incisional hernias compared to interrupted suturing. When using a slowly absorbable suture for continuous suturing in elective midline closure, the small bites technique results in significantly less incisional hernias than a large bites technique (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19, 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence available concerning the best suture material or technique to reduce incisional hernia rate when closing a laparotomy. When using a slowly absorbable suture and a continuous suturing technique with small tissue bites, the incisional hernia rate is significantly reduced compared with a large bites technique.

Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART)-abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: feasibility trial for a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Incisional hernias are common complications of midline abdominal closure. The 'Hughes Repair' combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. There is evidence to suggest this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared Hughes repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation. This paper aims to test the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial of a comparison of abdominal wall closure methods following midline incisional surgery for colorectal cancer, in preparation to a definitive randomised controlled trial.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A feasibility trial (with 1:1 randomisation) conducted perioperatively during colorectal cancer surgery.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing midline incisional surgery for resection of colorectal cancer.

INTERVENTIONS

Comparison of two suture techniques (Hughes repair or standard mass closure) for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

A 30-patient feasibility trial assessed recruitment, randomisation, deliverability and early safety of the surgical techniques used.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were randomised from 43 patients recruited and consented, over a 5-month period. 14 and 16 patients were randomised to arms A and B, respectively. There was one superficial surgical site infection (SSI) and two organ space SSIs reported in arm A, and two superficial SSIs and one complete wound dehiscence in arm B. There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions reported in either arm. Independent data monitoring committee found no early safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility trial found no early safety concerns and demonstrated that the trial was acceptable to patients. Progression to the pilot and main phases of the trial has now commenced following approval by the independent data monitoring committee.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN 25616490.

Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications

BACKGROUND

Surgeons who perform laparotomy have a number of decisions to make regarding abdominal closure. Material and size of potential suture types varies widely. In addition, surgeons can choose to close the incision in anatomic layers or mass ('en masse'), as well as using either a continuous or interrupted suturing technique, of which there are different styles of each. There is ongoing debate as to which suturing techniques and suture materials are best for achieving definitive wound closure while minimising the risk of short- and long-term complications.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to identify the best available suture techniques and suture materials for closure of the fascia following laparotomy incisions, by assessing the following comparisons: absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures; mass versus layered closure; continuous versus interrupted closure techniques; monofilament versus multifilament sutures; and slow absorbable versus fast absorbable sutures. Our objective was not to determine the single best combination of suture material and techniques, but to compare the individual components of abdominal closure.

SEARCH METHODS

On 8 February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two trials registries, and Science Citation Index. There were no limitations based on language or date of publication. We searched the reference lists of all included studies to identify trials that our searches may have missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared suture materials or closure techniques, or both, for fascial closure of laparotomy incisions. We excluded trials that compared only types of skin closures, peritoneal closures or use of retention sutures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each trial. We calculated a summary risk ratio (RR) for the outcomes assessed in the review, all of which were dichotomous. We used random-effects modelling, based on the heterogeneity seen throughout the studies and analyses. We completed subgroup analysis planned a priori for each outcome, excluding studies where interventions being compared differed by more than one component, making it impossible to determine which variable impacted on the outcome, or the possibility of a synergistic effect. We completed sensitivity analysis, excluding trials with at least one trait with high risk of bias. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADEpro guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-five RCTs with a total of 19,174 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in the type of sutures used, methods of closure and patient population. Many of the included studies reported multiple comparisons.For our primary outcome, the proportion of participants who developed incisional hernia at one year or more of follow-up, we did not find evidence that suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.35, very low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35, moderate-quality evidence) resulted in a difference in the risk of incisional hernia. We did, however, find evidence to suggest that monofilament sutures reduced the risk of incisional hernia when compared with multifilament sutures (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98, I2 = 30%, moderate-quality evidence).For our secondary outcomes, we found that none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound infection, whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.57, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.34, moderate-quality evidence).Similarily, none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound dehiscence whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.10, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.61, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.64, moderate-quality evidence).Absorbable sutures, compared with non-absorbable sutures (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) reduced the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation. None of the other comparisons showed a difference (slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.05 to 16.05, very low-quality evidence; mass versus layered, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62, low-quality evidence; continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.61, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on this moderate-quality body of evidence, monofilament sutures may reduce the risk of incisional hernia. Absorbable sutures may also reduce the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation, but this finding is based on low-quality evidence.We had serious concerns about the design or reporting of several of the 55 included trials. The comparator arms in many trials differed by more than one component, making it impossible to attribute differences between groups to any one component. In addition, the patient population included in many of the studies was very heterogeneous. Trials included both emergency and elective cases, different types of disease pathology (e.g. colon surgery, hepatobiliary surgery, etc.) or different types of incisions (e.g. midline, paramedian, subcostal).Consequently, larger, high-quality trials to further address this clinical challenge are warranted. Future studies should ensure that proper randomisation and allocation techniques are performed, wound assessors are blinded, and that the duration of follow-up is adequate. It is important that only one type of intervention is compared between groups. In addition, a homogeneous patient population would allow for a more accurate assessment of the interventions.

Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART) - Abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Incisional hernias are common complications of midline closure following abdominal surgery and cause significant morbidity, impaired quality of life and increased health care costs.

The ‘Hughes Repair’ combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. This theoretically distributes the load along the incision length as well as across it. There is evidence to suggest that this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared the Hughes Repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation following a midline incision.

Methods/design

This is a 1:1 randomised controlled trial comparing two suture techniques for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer. Full ethical approval has been gained (Wales REC 3, MREC 12/WA/0374). Eight hundred patients will be randomised from approximately 20 general surgical units within the United Kingdom. Patients undergoing open or laparoscopic (more than a 5-cm midline incision) surgery for colorectal cancer, elective or emergency, are eligible. Patients under the age of 18 years, those having mesh inserted or undergoing musculofascial flap closure of the perineal defect in abdominoperineal wound closure, and those unable to give informed consent will be excluded. Patients will be randomised intraoperatively to either the Hughes Repair or standard mass closure. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year as assessed by standardised clinical examination. The secondary outcomes include quality of life patient-reported outcome measures, cost-utility analysis, incidence of complete abdominal wound dehiscence and C-POSSUM scores. The incidence of incisional hernia at 1 year, assessed by computerised tomography, will form a tertiary outcome.

Discussion

A feasibility phase has been completed. The results of the study will be used to inform current and future practice and potentially reduce the risk of incisional hernia formation following midline incisions.

Trial registration

Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN 25616490. Registered on 1 January 2012.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1573-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An implantable sensor device measuring suture tension dynamics: results of developmental and experimental work

PURPOSE

Knowledge about suture tension dynamics after laparotomy closure is limited due to the lack of adequate measurement tools. As a consequence, a miniaturized implantable sensor and data logger were developed and applied experimentally in a porcine model to measure suture tension dynamics after laparotomy closure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We developed an implantable device (6 × 3 × 1 mm) fitted with silicon strain gauges and an implantable data logger allowing long-term registration. In nine domestic pigs, sensors and loggers were implanted along the suture closing a median laparotomy registering suture tension over a period of 23 h.

RESULTS

Fascial closure was achieved by a mean suture tension of 1.07 N. After 30 minutes, suture tension was reduced to 0.81N (-24.3 %, p = 0.0003). After 12 h, tension showed a further decrease to 0.69 N (-35.5 %, n.s.), after 23 h mean suture tension reached 0.56 N, (-47.7 %, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

The aim to develop an implantable miniaturized sensor device registering long-term suture tension dynamics was achieved. The use in the animal experiment was feasible and safe. We observed a loss of almost 50 % of suture tension 23 h after fascial closure. This could mean that up to 50 % of initial suture tension may be an unnecessary surplus not contributing to tissue stability but to the risk of suture failure.