Abdominal Wall Closure in Emergency Laparotomy: Management and Outcome in Omdurman Teaching Hospital

Lodu S Kuju

Authors

Lodu S Kuju

Keywords:

laparotomy incision closure, suture material, closure technique

Abstract

Background: T h e incisions those applied in approaching those operations , were vertical anterior abdominal incisions (midline or paramedian), and the way these incisions were closed, it was either mass or layered abdominal wall closure and types of suture materials used in the closure, non - absorbable/absorbable, monofilament (Nylon)/ polyfilament (Vicryl). Objectives: T o stu dy a series of patients those who underwent vertical incisions, either midline or paramedian and how t hey were closed, mass or layered closure and suture materials used inclosing the abdomen and the outcome. Patients and methods: This study is an observational prospective analytical hospital based study. Conducted at Omdurman Teaching Hospital, Sudan, over one year duration from 2012 Sep to 2013 Sep. Included were patients who underwent vertical anterior abdominal incisions (midline or paramedian) for emergency laparotomy, Non probability sampling including patients consecutively. Questionnaires were used a nd the variables were; demographical patient data, indications for laparotomy, suture materials used in these closures, technique of closing the fascial layer and skin and the outcome. Patient consent and ethical clearance were obtained in advance. Data wa s analyzed using SPSS version 20 and the P value was considered significant if ã´€ 0.05. Patients and methods: R e sults: 114 ( 91.9% ) patients underwent midline incisions and 10(8.1%) patients were paramedian incision. Mass closure were111 (89.5%) and layered were13 (10.5%) patients, types of suture materials used in the closure technique were non - absorbable polyamide (Nylon) 103(83.1%). Delayed absorbable polygactin 910 (Vicryl) 21 (19.9%). Sutures size used 2# (106) Nylon 90 (87.4%) Vicryl 16 (76.2%), 1# (17) Nylon 12 (11.7%) - vicryl 5(23.8%) and only one 0# (0.8%). Length of hospital stay 5days and less 55 (44.4%) patients, >5 - 10 days 52 (41.9%) patients and >10 days were 16 (13.7%) p

Downloads

How to Cite

Abdominal Wall Closure in Emergency Laparotomy: Management and Outcome in Omdurman Teaching Hospital. (2014). Global Journal of Medical Research, 13(I4), 1-4. https://medicalresearchjournal.org/index.php/GJMR/article/view/484

Download Citation

References

Stanley Michael J Zinner (2007) Ashley Maingot's Abdominal Operations.

S Chawia (2012) Comparison between mass closure and layered closure of midline abdominal incision. 5, 26-27.

J Bellon-Caneiro (2005) Abdominal wall closure in laparotomy. 77(3), 114-123.

M Bolli, M Schilling (2006) Chirurgische Durchtrennung und Verschluss der Bauchdecke. 77(5), 408-413.

A Ceydeli, J Rucinski, L Wise (2005) Finding the best abdominal closure: An evidence-base review of the literature. 62, 220-225.

D Millbourn, Y Cengiz, L Israelsson (2009) Effect of stitches length on wound complications after closure of midline incisions: A randomized controlled trials. 144(11), 1056-1059.

M Carlson (2000) Neue Entwicklungen beim Bauchdeckenverschluß. 71(7), 743-753.

Nuh Rahbari, Phillip Knebel, Markus Diener, Christoph Seidlmayer, Karsten Ridwelski, Hartmut Stöltzing, Christoph Seiler (2009) Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery - Is there any consensus?. 9(1).

G Singh, R Ahluwalia (2012) A comparison between mass closure and layered Closure of midline abdominal incisions. 5, 26-27.

Juan Bellón, Pedro López-Hervás, Marta Rodríguez, Natalio García-Honduvilla, Gemma Pascual, Julia Buján (2006) Midline Abdominal Wall Closure: A New Prophylactic Mesh Concept. 203(4), 490-497.

V Gaikwad, R Kapoor, R Thambudorai (2009) An ideal suture for midline abdominal closure. 71, 1-28.

C Nicole, Richard (2000) The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure. 231(3), 436-442.

A Altaf, S Mohammad, Abdul Rasheed, S (2011) Closure of elective abdominal Incisions with monofilament, non-absorbable suture material versus poly-filament absorbable suture material. 23(2).

Christoph Justinger, Jan Slotta, Martin Schilling (2012) Incisional hernia after abdominal closure with slowly absorbable versus fast absorbable, antibacterial-coated sutures. 151(3), 398-403.

Markus Albertsmeier, Christoph Seiler, Lars Fischer, Petra Baumann, Johannes Hüsing, Christoph Seidlmayer, Annette Franck, Karl-Walter Jauch, Hanns-Peter Knaebel, Markus Büchler (2012) Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of MonoMax® suture material for abdominal wall closure after primary midline laparotomy-a controlled prospective multicentre trial: ISSAAC [NCT005725079]. 397(3), 363-371.

D Leaper, A Allan, R Kennedy (1985) Abdominal wound closure: A controlled Trial of polyamide (Nylon) and polydioxanone suture (PDS). 67(5), 273-275.

P Scheidel, M Hohl (1987) Modern synthetic suture materials and abdominal wound closure techniques in gynecological surgery. 1(2), 223-246.

A Schachtrupp, V Fackeldey, U Klinge, J Hoer, A Tittel, C Toens, V Schumpelick (2002) Temporary closure of the abdominal wall (laparostomy). 6(4), 155-162.

J Alcides, T Nelton, Joao, A S Jr Needle for abdominal wall closure.

J Joris, E L Harold, Willem (2011) A multicentre randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of small stitches on incidence incisional hernia in midline incisions. 11, 20.

A Bloemen, P Van Dooren, B Huizinga, A Hoofwijk (2011) Randomized clinical trial comparing polypropylene or polydioxanone for midline abdominal wall closure. 98(5), 633-639.