Comparison of Midline Closure Results after Laparotomy sing Prolene Versus Polydioxanone Suture

Muhammad Tayyab Malik; Muhammad Qasim Butt; Muhammad Yousaf Shah; Usman Ghani; Khurram Sarfraz Bajwa; Aqib Malik

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v75i6.8646

Authors

Muhammad Tayyab Malik Department of General Surgery, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Rawalpindi Pakistan
Muhammad Qasim Butt Department of General Surgery, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Rawalpindi Pakistan
Muhammad Yousaf Shah Department of General & Laparoscopic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital Pano Aqil/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Usman Ghani Department of General & Laparoscopic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital Kohat/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Khurram Sarfraz Bajwa Department of General Surgery, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Rawalpindi Pakistan
Aqib Malik Department of Family Medicine, EME College, Rawalpindi Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v75i6.8646

Keywords:

Laparotomy, Midline Closure, Outcome, Polydiaxanone Suture, Prolene

Abstract

Objective: To determine the outcome of midline closure among patients undergoing laparotomy using Prolene versus Polydiaxanone Suture (PDS).

Study Design: Quasi-experimental study.

Place and Duration of Study: Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Jun to Dec 2021.

Methodology: All patients over the age of 18 who had an elective abdominal laparotomy were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomly assigned using randomization tables to one of two groups, i.e., midlines closed with Prolene (Group-A) and with PDS suture (Group-B). At a one-month follow-up, these patients were evaluated for complications related to abdominal incision (e.g., surgical site infection, persistent wound discomfort, and wound dehiscence).

Results: Of 140 patients, surgical site infection was observed in 30(21.4%), abdominal wound discomfort in 33(23.6%), and wound dehiscence in 2(1.4%) patients. Surgical site infection was found significantly higher in Prolene group as compared to PDS group, i.e., 20(28.6%) and 10(14.3%) respectively (p-value 0.039). Abdominal wound discomfort was also found significantly higher in Group-A as compared to Group-B, i.e., 22(31.4%) and 11(15.7%) respectively (p-value 0.029).

Conclusion: The outcome of midline closure using Polydiaxanone Suture (PDS) was found better compared to Prolene among patients having elective laparotomy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

REFERENCES

1. Chase NF, Carballo CJ, Faulkner JD, Bilezikian JA, Hope WW. Laparotomy Closure: A Review of Available Education Training Models. Surg Technol Int 2020; 37: 121-125.

https://doi.org/10.52198/21.sti.38.hr1430

2. Patel SV, Paskar DD, Nelson RL, Vedula SS, Steele SR. Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 11(11): CD005661.

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005661.pub2

3. Vyas PH, Pandya JB, Narola SD. A Comparative Study On Outcome Of Midline Laparotomy Wound Closure. Indian J Appl Basic Med Sci 2019; 21(1): 186-196.

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20161765

4. Fortelny RH. Abdominal Wall Closure in Elective Midline Laparotomy: The Current Recommendations. Front Surg 2018; 5(1): 34. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2018.00034

5. Henriksen NA, Deerenberg EB, Venclauskas L, Fortelny RH, Miserez M, Muysoms FE. Meta-analysis on Materials and Techniques for Laparotomy Closure: The MATCH Review. World J Surg 2018; 42(6): 1666-1678.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4393-9

6. Heger P, Pianka F, Diener MK, Mihaljevic AL. Current standards of abdominal wall closure techniques: Conventional suture techniques. Chirurg 2016; 87(9): 737-743.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-016-0231-0

7. Murtaza B, Ali N, Sharif MA, Malik IB, Mahmood A. Modified midline abdominal wound closure technique in complicated/high risk laparotomies. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2010; 20(1): 37-41.

8. Waqar SH, Malik ZI, Razzaq A, Abdullah MT, Shaima A, Zahid MA. Frequency and risk factors for wound dehiscence/burst abdomen in midline laparotomies. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2005; 17(4): 70-73.

9. Pai D, Shenoy R, Chethan K. Comparison of non-absorbable (polypropylene) versus delayed absorbable (polydioxanone) suture material for abdominal wound closure after laparotomy. Int Sur J 2018; 5(5): 1690-1696.

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20181404

10. Shahid MA, Mahmoud FA, Elmallah AS. Evaluation of a new technique for abdominal wall closure in midline laparotomies. Int Surg J 2018; 24; 5(8): 2701-2707.

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20183188

11. Albahadili M, Kadhem MJ, Majeed AW. Polydioxanone Sutures Instead of Polypropylene Sutures for Abdominal Closure to Prevent Wound Sinuses. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol 2021; 15(2): 2927.

https://doi.org/10.37506/ijfmt.v15i2.14817

12. Gandhi CS, Mote DG, Shivani Z, Sama KK. Short term outcome of midline laparotomies in view abdominalfascia closer. Int Surg J 2021; 9(1): 107-110.

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20215140

13. Naz S, Memon SA, Jamali MA, Ahmed MR, Almani T. Polydioxanone Versus Polypropylene Closure For Midline Abdominal Incisions. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2017; 29(4): 591-594.

14. Justinger C, Slotta JE, Ningel S, Gräber S, Kollmar O, Schilling MK. Surgical-site infection after abdominal wall closure with triclosan-impregnated polydioxanone sutures: results of a randomized clinical pathway facilitated trial (NCT00998907). Surgery 2013; 154(3): 589-595.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2013.04.011

15. Gurjar V, Halvadia BM, Bharaney RP, Ajwani V, Shah SM, Rai S. Study of two techniques for midline laparotomy fascial wound closure. Indian J Surg 2014; 76(2): 91-94.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0612-7

16. Talpur AA, Awan MS, Surhio AR. Closure of elective abdominal incisions with monofilament, non-absorbable suture material versus polyfilament absorbable suture material. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2011; 23(2): 51-54.

17. Pandey S, Singh M, Singh K, Sandhu S. A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Non-absorbable Polypropylene (Prolene®) and Delayed Absorbable Polyglactin 910 (Vicryl®) Suture Material in Mass Closure of Vertical Laparotomy Wounds. Indian J Surg 2013; 75(4): 306-310.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0492-x

18. Sajid MS, Parampalli U, Baig MK, McFall MR. A systematic review on the effectiveness of slowly-absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for abdominal fascial closure following laparotomy. Int J Surg 2011; 9(8): 615-625.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.09.006

19. Chalya PL, Massinde AN, Kihunrwa A, Mabula JB. Abdominal fascia closure following elective midline laparotomy: a surgical experience at a tertiary care hospital in Tanzania. BMC Res Notes 2015; 8(1): 281.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1243-4

20. El-Charif MH, Hassan Z, Hoballah J, Khalife M, Sbaity E. Protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing wound Complications in elective midline laparotomies after Fascia Closure using two different Techniques of Running sutures: COFACTOR trial. Trials 2020; 21(1): 608.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04507-8