Cargando…

Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery – Is there any consensus?

BACKGROUND: Development of incisional hernia after open abdominal surgery remains a major cause of post-operative morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the current practice of surgeons in terms of access to and closure of the abdominal cavity in elective open surgery. METHODS: Twelve sur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rahbari, Nuh N, Knebel, Phillip, Diener, Markus K, Seidlmayer, Christoph, Ridwelski, Karsten, Stöltzing, Hartmut, Seiler, Christoph M
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687428/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442311
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-9-8
_version_ 1782167529273163776
author Rahbari, Nuh N
Knebel, Phillip
Diener, Markus K
Seidlmayer, Christoph
Ridwelski, Karsten
Stöltzing, Hartmut
Seiler, Christoph M
author_facet Rahbari, Nuh N
Knebel, Phillip
Diener, Markus K
Seidlmayer, Christoph
Ridwelski, Karsten
Stöltzing, Hartmut
Seiler, Christoph M
author_sort Rahbari, Nuh N
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Development of incisional hernia after open abdominal surgery remains a major cause of post-operative morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the current practice of surgeons in terms of access to and closure of the abdominal cavity in elective open surgery. METHODS: Twelve surgical departments of the INSECT-Trial group documented the following variables for 50 consecutive patients undergoing abdominal surgery: fascial closure techniques, applied suture materials, application of subcutaneous sutures, subcutaneous drains, methods for skin closure. Descriptive analysis was performed and consensus of treatment variables was categorized into four levels: Strong consensus >95%, consensus 75–95%, overall agreement 50–75%, no consensus <50%. RESULTS: 157 out of 599 patients were eligible for analysis (85 (54%) midline, 54 (35%) transverse incisions). After midline incisions the fascia was closed continuously in 55 patients (65%), using slowly absorbable (n = 47, 55%), braided (n = 32, 38%) sutures with a strength of 1 (n = 48, 57%). In the transverse setting the fascia was closed continuously in 39 patients (72%) with slowly absorbable (n = 22, 41%) braided sutures (n = 27, 50%) with a strength of 1 (n = 30, 56%). CONCLUSION: In the present evaluation midline incision was the most frequently applied access in elective open abdominal surgery. None of the treatments for abdominal wall closure (except skin closure in the midline group) is performed on a consensus level.
format Text
id pubmed-2687428
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26874282009-05-28 Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery – Is there any consensus? Rahbari, Nuh N Knebel, Phillip Diener, Markus K Seidlmayer, Christoph Ridwelski, Karsten Stöltzing, Hartmut Seiler, Christoph M BMC Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: Development of incisional hernia after open abdominal surgery remains a major cause of post-operative morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the current practice of surgeons in terms of access to and closure of the abdominal cavity in elective open surgery. METHODS: Twelve surgical departments of the INSECT-Trial group documented the following variables for 50 consecutive patients undergoing abdominal surgery: fascial closure techniques, applied suture materials, application of subcutaneous sutures, subcutaneous drains, methods for skin closure. Descriptive analysis was performed and consensus of treatment variables was categorized into four levels: Strong consensus >95%, consensus 75–95%, overall agreement 50–75%, no consensus <50%. RESULTS: 157 out of 599 patients were eligible for analysis (85 (54%) midline, 54 (35%) transverse incisions). After midline incisions the fascia was closed continuously in 55 patients (65%), using slowly absorbable (n = 47, 55%), braided (n = 32, 38%) sutures with a strength of 1 (n = 48, 57%). In the transverse setting the fascia was closed continuously in 39 patients (72%) with slowly absorbable (n = 22, 41%) braided sutures (n = 27, 50%) with a strength of 1 (n = 30, 56%). CONCLUSION: In the present evaluation midline incision was the most frequently applied access in elective open abdominal surgery. None of the treatments for abdominal wall closure (except skin closure in the midline group) is performed on a consensus level. BioMed Central 2009-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC2687428/ /pubmed/19442311 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-9-8 Text en Copyright © 2009 Rahbari et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rahbari, Nuh N
Knebel, Phillip
Diener, Markus K
Seidlmayer, Christoph
Ridwelski, Karsten
Stöltzing, Hartmut
Seiler, Christoph M
Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery – Is there any consensus?
title Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery – Is there any consensus?
title_full Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery – Is there any consensus?
title_fullStr Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery – Is there any consensus?
title_full_unstemmed Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery – Is there any consensus?
title_short Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery – Is there any consensus?
title_sort current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery – is there any consensus?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687428/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442311
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-9-8
work_keys_str_mv AT rahbarinuhn currentpracticeofabdominalwallclosureinelectivesurgeryisthereanyconsensus
AT knebelphillip currentpracticeofabdominalwallclosureinelectivesurgeryisthereanyconsensus
AT dienermarkusk currentpracticeofabdominalwallclosureinelectivesurgeryisthereanyconsensus
AT seidlmayerchristoph currentpracticeofabdominalwallclosureinelectivesurgeryisthereanyconsensus
AT ridwelskikarsten currentpracticeofabdominalwallclosureinelectivesurgeryisthereanyconsensus
AT stoltzinghartmut currentpracticeofabdominalwallclosureinelectivesurgeryisthereanyconsensus
AT seilerchristophm currentpracticeofabdominalwallclosureinelectivesurgeryisthereanyconsensus