Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prophylactic Retention Sutures in Midline Laparotomy in High-Risk Patients for Wound Dehiscence: a Randomised Prospective Case Control Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Abdominal wound dehiscence (AWD) is one of the most notorious complication after laparotomy and associated with high morbidity and mortality. The retention suture is used in the re-operated cases of wound dehiscence to reduce the disruption of fascia. To study the effect of prophylactic retention sutures in patients with high risk for wound dehiscence who underwent midline laparotomy. Random selection of 200 midline laparotomy cases was done divided into two groups. In the one group (Cases- group A) Conventional mass closure of midline fascial wound closure with incorporation of prophylactic retention sutures. In other group (Control group - group B) midline line fascial closure by conventional mass closure without incorporation of prophylactic retention sutures. Comparison of both the techniques regarding preoperative status and postoperative complication such as incisional hernia, wound dehiscence and chronic wound pain was done according to clinical examination and recorded in the pro forma prepared. Incorporation of prophylactic retention sutures reduce the occurrence of WD following midline laparotomy in high-risk patients with multiple risk factors for impaired wound healing without imposing remarkable post-operative complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Riou JP, Cohen JR, Johnson H Sr (1992) Factors influencing wound dehiscence. Am J Surg 16(3):324–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhamak et al (2012) Prophylactic retention sutures in midline laparotomy in high risk cases of wound dehiscence: a randomized controlled trial. Assoc Acad Surg 178(11):110–115

    Google Scholar 

  3. Armstrong CP, Dixon JM, Duffy SW et al (1984) Wound healing in obstructive jaundice. Br J Surg 71(6):267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gialson H, Gronbech JE (1995) Burst abdomen and incisional hernia after major gastrointestinal operations and comparison of closure techniques. Br J Surg 51(4):154–159

    Google Scholar 

  5. Macdougal BA (1995) Locking a continuous running suture. J Am Coll Surg 18(1):563

    Google Scholar 

  6. Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012

  7. Spiliotis J, Tsiveriotis K, Datsis AD, Vaxevanidou A, Zacharis G et al (2009) Wound dehiscence is still a problem in the 21th century: a retrospective study. World J Emerg Surg 4:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-4-12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. O’Dwyer PJ, Courtrey CA (2003) Educational review: Factors involved in abdominal wall closure and subsequent incisional hernia. Surgeon 1(1):17–22

  9. Adams G, Richter RM (1973) A safe method of closure with retention sutures. Ann Surg 13(6):98–100

    Google Scholar 

  10. Banerjee SR, Daoud, Russeell JC et al (1983) Abdominal wound evisceration. Ann Surg 40(3):432–436

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Miles RM, Nash JP et al (1967) Value of retention sutures in the prevention of experimental abdominal wound disruption. Am J Surg 33(12):898–905

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mohanad et al (2013) Effect of retention sutures in prevention of abdominal wound dehiscence. Assoc Acad Surg 152(1):223–229

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pennickx et al (1979) Abdominal wound dehiscence in gastroenterological surgery. Ann Surg 189:345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hubbard, Rever et al (1982) Determinants of wound dehiscence in abdominal surgery. Am J Surg 26(10):698–705

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rink AD, Goldschmidt D, Dietrich J et al (2000) Negative side effects of retention sutures for abdominal wound closure. A prospective randomised study. Eur J Surg 166:932–937

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, P.D.U Medical College & Hospital, Rajkot, India

    Ajay Maganlal Rajyaguru, Milap Jignesh Shah, Bhavesh V. Vaishnani, Jignesh P. Dave & Jatin G. Bhatt

  2. “Sanjay”, Golden Park Main Road, Nr. Ravi-Ratna Park Society, University Road, Rajkot, India

    Ajay Maganlal Rajyaguru

Authors
  1. Ajay Maganlal Rajyaguru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Milap Jignesh Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bhavesh V. Vaishnani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jignesh P. Dave
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jatin G. Bhatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ajay Maganlal Rajyaguru.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rajyaguru, A.M., Shah, M.J., Vaishnani, B.V. et al. Prophylactic Retention Sutures in Midline Laparotomy in High-Risk Patients for Wound Dehiscence: a Randomised Prospective Case Control Study. Indian J Surg 80, 564–568 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-017-1684-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-017-1684-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation