medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-3194 (Print)
Órgano de difusión oficial del Instituto Materno Infantil del Estado de México

2015, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Arch Inv Mat Inf 2015; 7 (2)

Experience with mass closure and the traditional technique for abdominal surgical wound

Mendoza DFJ, Galindo RF, Gutiérrez GVM

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 61-68
PDF size: 229.34 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Choosing the most appropriate incision for each pathology and patient, and then performing it with good surgical technique is the first step to successful operation and is also the most effective measure to prevent postoperative complications of the abdominal wall, such as hematomas, infections, and dehiscence, either acute (evisceration) or chronic (hernias). Layered closure and closing block are two modes with similar results. Material and methods: This is an observational, prospective, longitudinal, comparative study. Two cohorts were evaluated. Patients were recruited between April 2013 to September 2013 and had up to six months of follow-up. Objective: To compare the clinical course and the presence of complications in individuals undergoing mass and layered closure techniques, for a period of six months after their surgery . Results: The sample consisted of 47 people (100%). The technique of closure of the abdominal wall elected in 16 subjects (34%) was layered closure, and 31 cases (66%) received mass closure. The average time for layered closure of the 16 patients was 16.5 minutes (range: 9-30 minutes), and 9.5 minutes (range: 4-30 minutes) for the group of 31 individuals on whom mass closure was performed. Of the total of 47 people (100%), only two (4.2%) needed reoperation for any of the complications mentioned: one for dehiscence and one for evisceration. Conclusions: No significant difference was found in mortality and reintervention caused by complications; we can consider that the mass closure is as safe as the layered closure, and may present the same complications; therefore, this technique can be used to provide closure for patients with abdominal surgery.


REFERENCES

  1. Álvarez CJ, Porrero CJ, Dávila DD; Asociación Española de Cirujanos. Cirugía de la pared abdominal. Guías clínicas de la Asociación Española de Cirujanos, Sección de pared abdominal y suturas, España: Aran Ediciones; 2002.

  2. Van Ramshorst GH, Salu NE, Bax NM, Hop WC, van Heurm E, Aronson DC et al. Risk factors for abdominal wound dehiscence in children: a case-control study, World J Surg, 2009; 33: 1509-1513.

  3. Townsend Jr CM, Beauchamp RD, Evers BM, Mattox KL. Sabiston Tratado de cirugía: fundamentos biológicos de la práctica quirúrgica moderna, 18.ª edición, España: Ed. Elsevier; 2009.

  4. Lucha PA Jr, Wallace D, Pasque C, Brickhouse N, Olsen D, Styks S et al. Surgical wound morbidity in an austere surgical environment, Mil Med, 2010; 175 (5): 357-361.

  5. Ciğdem MK, Onen A, Otçu S, Duran H. Postoperative abdominal evisceration in children: possible risk factors, Pediatr Surg Int, 2006; 22 (8): 677-680.

  6. Harlaar JJ, Deerenberg EB, van Ramshorst GH, Lont HE, van der Borst EC, Schouten WR et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of small stitches on the incidence of incisional hernia in midline incisions, BMC Surg, 2011; 11: 20.

  7. Guzmán-Valdivia G. Incisional hernia at the site of a stoma, Hernia, 2008; 12: 471-474.

  8. Pearl ML, Rayburn WF. Choosing abdominal incision and closure techniques: a review, J Reprod Med, 2004; 49 (8): 662-670.

  9. Bellón-Caneiro JM. El cierre de laparotomía en la línea alba, Cir Esp, 2005; 77 (3): 114-123.

  10. Lezama-del Valle P, Bracho-Blanchet E, Porras-Hernández JD, Carmona-Barba R, Nieto-Zermeño J, Sánchez-Losa FA. Cierre de pared abdominal en masa con material de sutura no absorbible versus cierre por capas con material de sutura absorbible en pacientes oncológicos pediátricos. Análisis de minimización de costos, Rev Mex Cirug Ped, 2007; 14 (4): 170-184.

  11. Richards P, Balch C, Aldrete J. Abdominal wound closures. A randomized prospective study of 571 patients, comparing continuous vs. interrupted suture techniques, Ann Surg, 1983; 197: 238-243.

  12. Fagniez PL, Hay JM, Lacaine F, Thomsen C. Abdominal midline incision closure. A multicenter randomized prospective trial of 3135 patients comparing continous vs. interrupted polyglycolic acid sutures, Arch Surg, 1985; 120: 1351-1353.

  13. Bucknall TE, Cox PJ, Ellis H. Burst abdomen and incisional hernia: a prospective study of 1.129 major laparotomies, BMJ, 1982; 284: 931-933.

  14. McFadden PM, Peacock EE. Preperitoneal abdominal wound repair: incidence of dehiscence, Am J Surg, 1983; 145: 213-214.

  15. Poole GV. Mechanical factors in abdominal wound closure: the prevention of fascial dehiscence, Surgery, 1985; 97: 631-640.

  16. Ellis H, Bucknall TE, Cox PJ. Abdominal incisions and their closure, Curr Probl Surg, 1985; 22: 5-50.

  17. Campbell JA, Temple WJ, Frank CB, Huchcroft SA. A biomechanical study of suture pullout in linea alba, Surgery, 1989; 106: 888-892.

  18. Millbourn D, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA. Risk factors for wound complications in midline abdominal incisions related to the size of stitches, Hernia, 2011; 15: 261-266.

  19. Pollock AV, Greenali MJ, Evans M. Single-layer mass closure of major laparotomies by continuous suturing, J R Soc Med, 1979; 72 (12): 889-893.

  20. Iavazzo C, Gkegkes ID, Vouloumanou EK, Mamais I, Peppas G, Falagas ME. Sutures versus staples for the management of surgical wounds: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Am Surg, 2011; 77: 1206-1221.

  21. Rink AD, Goldschmidt D, Dietrich J, Nagelschmidt M, Vestweber KH. Negative side-effects of retention sutures for abdominal wound closure. A prospective randomised study, Eur J Surg, 2000; 166: 932-937.

  22. Malvasi A, Tinelli A, Pacella E. Mass closure of visceral peritoneum at cesarean section. A proposal method, J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2010; 23: 345-346.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com