The 6:1 short stitch SL-WL-ratio: short term closure results of transverse and midline incisions in elective and emergency operations

AIM

To analyze laparotomy closure quality (suture/wound length ratio; SL/WL) and short term complications (surgical site occurrence; SSO) of conventional midline and transverse abdominal incisions in elective and emergency laparotomies with a longterm, absorbent, elastic suture material.

METHOD

Prospective, monocentric, non-randomized, controlled cohort study on short stitches with a longterm resorbable, elastic suture (poly-4-hydroxybutyrate, [p-4OHB]) aiming at a 6:1 SL/WL-ratio in midline and transverse, primary and secondary laparotomies for elective and emergency surgeries.

RESULTS

We included 351 patients (♂: 208; ♀: 143) with midline (n = 194), transverse (n = 103), and a combined midline/transverse L-shaped (n = 54) incisions. There was no quality difference in short stitches between elective (n = 296) and emergency (n = 55) operations. Average SL/WL-ratio was significantly higher for midline than transverse incisions (6.62 ± 2.5 vs 4.3 ± 1.51, p < 0.001). Results in the first 150 patients showed a reduced SL/WL-ratio to the following 200 suture closures (SL/WL-ratio: 5.64 ± 2.5 vs 6.1 ± 2.3; p < 0.001). SL/WL-ratio varied insignificantly among the six surgeons participating while results were steadily improving over time. Clinically, superficial surgical site infections (SSI, CDC-A1/2) were encountered in 8%, while 4,3% were related to intraabdominal complications (CDC-A3). An abdominal wall dehiscence (AWD) occurred in 22/351 patients (6,3%)-twice as common in emergency than elective surgery (12,7 vs 5,1%)-necessitating an abdominal revision in 86,3% of cases.

CONCLUSION

We could show that a short stitch 6:1 SL/WL-ratio with a 2-0 single, ultra-long term, absorbent, elastic suture material can be performed in only 43% of cases (85% > 4:1 SL/WL-ratio), significantly better in midline than transverse incisions. Transverse incisions should preferably be closed in two layers to achieve a sufficient SL/WL-ratio equivalent to the median incision.

CLINICAL TRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01938222.

Small bite versus large bite stitching technique for midline laparotomy wound closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mass closure with a continuous suture using large bite stitching technique has been widely accepted for midline laparotomy wound closures. However, emerging evidence suggests the use of small bite technique to reduce rates of incisional ventral hernia, surgical site infection (SSI) and burst abdomen. This meta-analysis aims to compare small versus large bite stitching techniques to assess complication rates in midline laparotomy wound closures. A comprehensive multi-database search (OVID EBM Reviews, OVID Medline, EMBASE, Scopus) was conducted from database inception to 11th October 2021 according to PRISMA guidelines. We included studies comparing post-operative complication rates of small bite versus large bite stitching techniques for midline laparotomy wound closure. Extracted data was pooled for meta-analysis evaluating rates of incisional ventral hernia, SSI and burst abdomen. We included five randomized controlled trials (RCT) in the meta-analysis and three prospective cohort studies for qualitative analysis. A total of 1977 participants composed of 961 small bite and 1016 large bite technique patients were included from the five RCTs. There was a significant reduction in the rates of incisional ventral hernia and SSI with the small bite stitch technique with odds ratios (OR) of 0.39 (95% CI [0.21-0.71]) and 0.68 (95% CI [0.51-0.91]) respectively, and a trend in favour of reduced incidence of burst abdomen with OR of 0.60 (95% CI [0.15-2.48]). Small bite stitch technique in midline laparotomy wound closure may be superior over conventional mass closure using the large bite stitch technique, with statistically significant lower rates of incisional ventral hernia and SSI.

Abdominal wound dehiscence and incisional hernia prevention in midline laparotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia (IH) is the main complication after laparotomy. In an attempt to reduce this complication, mesh techniques and studies in which the closure technique is modified have been proposed. Both types are characterized by comparison with the closure described as standard or conventional: 1 × 1, mass, and continuous closure. For this study, modified closure techniques (MCTs) were considered as those techniques in which an extra suture is placed (reinforced tension line (RTL), retention), the closure point is modified in distance (small bites) or shape (CLDC, Smead Jones, interrupted, Cardiff point) and which aim to reduce these complications. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate the effectiveness of MCTs for reducing the incidence of IH and abdominal wound dehiscence (AWD) to provide objective support for their recommendation.

METHODS

An NMA was performed according to the PRISMA-NMA guidelines. The primary objective was to determine the incidence of IH and AWD, and the secondary objective was to determine the incidence of postoperative complications. Only published clinical trials were included. The risk of bias was analyzed, and the random-effects model was used to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

Twelve studies comparing 3540 patients were included. The incidence of HI was lower in RTL, retention suture, and small bites, these techniques showed statistical differences with pooled ORs (95% CI) of 0.28 (0.09-0.83), 0.28 (0.13-0.62), and 0.44 (0.31-0.62), respectively. Associated complications, including hematoma, seroma, and postoperative pain, could not be analyzed; however, MCTs did not increase the risk of surgical site infection.

CONCLUSION

Small bites, RTL, and retention sutures decreased the prevalence of IH. RTL and retention suture decreased the prevalence of AWD. RTL was the best technique as it reduced both complications (IH and AWD) and had the best SUCRA and P-scores, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for net effect was 3.

REGISTRATION

This study was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42021231107.

Implementing a protocol to prevent incisional hernia in high-risk patients: a mesh is a powerful tool

PURPOSE

The small bites (SB) technique for closure of elective midline laparotomies (EMLs) and a prophylactic mesh (PM) in high-risk patients are suggested by the guidelines to prevent incisional hernias (IHs) and fascial dehiscence (FD). Our aim was to implement a protocol combining both the techniques and to analyze its outcomes.

METHODS

Prospective data of all EMLs were collected for 2 years. Results were analyzed at 1 month and during follow-up. The incidence of HI and FD was compared by groups (M = Mesh vs. S = suture) and by subgroups depending on using SB.

RESULTS

A lower number of FD appeared in the M group (OR 0.0692; 95% CI 0.008-0.56; P = 0.01) in 197 operations. After a mean follow-up of 29.23 months (N = 163; min. 6 months), with a lower frequency of IH in M group (OR 0.769; 95% CI 0.65-0.91; P < 0.0001). (33) The observed differences persisted after a propensity matching score: FD (OR 0.355; 95% CI 0.255-0.494; P < 0.0001) and IH (OR 0.394; 95% CI 0.24-0.61; P < 0.0001). On comparing suturing techniques by subgroups, both mesh subgroups had better outcomes. PM was the main factor related to the reduction of IH (HR 11.794; 95% CI 4.29-32.39; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Following the protocol using PM and SB showed a lower rate of FD and HI. A PM is safe and effective for the prevention of both HI and FD after MLE, regardless of the closure technique used.

Effects of the short-stitch technique for midline abdominal closure: short-term results from the randomised-controlled ESTOIH trial

Purpose

The short-stitch technique for midline laparotomy closure has been shown to reduce hernia rates, but long stitches remain the standard of care and the effect of the short-stitch technique on short-term results is not well known. The aim of this study was to compare the two techniques, using an ultra-long-term absorbable elastic suture material.

Methods

Following elective midline laparotomy, 425 patients in 9 centres were randomised to receive wound closure using the short-stitch (USP 2-0 single thread, n = 215) or long-stitch (USP 1 double loop, n = 210) technique with a poly-4-hydroxybutyrate-based suture material (Monomax^®). Here, we report short-term surgical outcomes.

Results

At 30 (+10) days postoperatively, 3 (1.40%) of 215 patients in the short-stitch group and 10 (4.76%) of 210 patients in the long-stitch group had developed burst abdomen [OR 0.2830 (0.0768–1.0433), p = 0.0513]. Ruptured suture, seroma and hematoma and other wound healing disorders occurred in small numbers without differences between groups. In a planned Cox proportional hazard model for burst abdomen, the short-stitch group had a significantly lower risk [HR 0.1783 (0.0379–0.6617), p = 0.0115].

Conclusions

Although this trial revealed no significant difference in short-term results between the short-stitch and long-stitch techniques for closure of midline laparotomy, a trend towards a lower rate of burst abdomen in the short-stitch group suggests a possible advantage of the short-stitch technique.

Trial registry

NCT01965249, registered October 18, 2013.