A New Method for Surgical Abdominal Mass Closure After Abdominal Fascial Dehiscence Using Nasogastric Tube and Hemovac Perforator: A Case-Series Study
- 31 Downloads
As the challenge for finding the best abdominal incision closure technique continues, surgeons are aiming to minimize postoperative wound complications such as wound dehiscence and hernia as an acute or late manifestation. In order to achieve this goal, several abdominal opening and closure techniques have been tried. In this article, we describe a method in which we used a nasogastric tube (NGT) in mass closure for patients with fascial dehiscence.
In this case-series study, a total number of 25 patients participated. All of the patients had abdominal dehiscence after a surgery and had to undergo for another. An NGT was used for abdominal closure. The patients were followed for a month and were examined for any signs and symptoms of fever, infection, pain, material expenses, closing time, and laboratory data. The data were analyzed using SPSS software V.22. Mean ± SD and frequencies were used for describing the variables.
The mean NGT mass closure material expenses for each patient were 8400.00 ± 0.00 IRR (around 0.25 US dollars). The mean closure time after the operation was 13.08 ± 3.09 min. There was no evidence of infection among the patients as well as no other complications after the surgery in the 1-month study period.
Abdominal mass closure with NG tube suturing technique is associated with reduced time required for closure of the incision, incidence of wound dehiscence, and the incidence of incisional hernia as well as infection, with a considerable low cost.
This research has been granted by the research department of Iran University of Medical Sciences.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 7.Yılmaz KB, Akıncı M, Doğan L, Karaman N, Özaslan C, Atalay C (2013) A prospective evaluation of the risk factors for development of wound dehiscence and incisional hernia. Turk J Surg 29(1):25–30Google Scholar
- 10.Seiler CM, Bruckner T, Diener MK, Papyan A, Golcher H, Seidlmayer C et al (2009) Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions: a multicenter randomized trial (INSECT: ISRCTN24023541). Ann Surg 249(4):576–582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Chawla S (2012) A comparison between mass closure and layered closure of midline abdominal incisions. Med J Dr DY Patil Univ 5(1):26–27Google Scholar
- 14.Chalya PL, Massinde AN, Kihunrwa A, Mabula JB (2015) Abdominal fascia closure following elective midline laparotomy: a surgical experience at a tertiary care hospital in Tanzania. BMC research notes 8Google Scholar
- 15.Srivastava A, Roy S, Sahay K, Seenu V, Kumar A, Chumber S et al (2004) Prevention of burst abdominal wound by a new technique: a randomized trial comparing continuous versus interrupted X-suture. Indian J Surg 66(1):19Google Scholar
- 19.Aminpour M, Alamrajabi M, Movahhed M, Fereshtehnejad S (2009) Report of a case of open abdomen using zipper locked method. Razi J Med Sci 16(62):53–58Google Scholar
- 20.Seiler CM, Bruckner T, Diener MK, Papyan A, Golcher H, Seidlmayer C et al (2009) Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions: a multicenter randomized trial (INSECT: ISRCTN24023541). Ann Surg 249(4):576–582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Komba CO (2012) Practices of abdominal fascial closure and related complications following elective midline laparotomy at Muhimbili National Hospital: Muhimbili University of Health and Allied SciencesGoogle Scholar
- 23.Anderson ER, Gates S (2007) Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004(4):CD004663. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004663.pub2
- 25.Osterberg B (1982) Enclosure of bacteria within capillary multifilament sutures as protection against leukocytes. Acta Chir Scand 149(7):663–668Google Scholar