Top

World Journal of Surgery

Published in:

01-06-2018 | Scientific Review

Meta-analysis on Materials and Techniques for Laparotomy Closure: The MATCH Review

Authors: N. A. Henriksen, E. B. Deerenberg, L. Venclauskas, R. H. Fortelny, M. Miserez, F. E. Muysoms

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 6/2018

Abstract

Background

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate closure materials and suture techniques for emergency and elective laparotomies. The primary outcome was incisional hernia after 12 months, and the secondary outcomes were burst abdomen and surgical site infection.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted until September 2017. The quality of the RCTs was evaluated by at least 3 assessors using critical appraisal checklists. Meta-analyses were performed.

Results

A total of 23 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. There was no evidence from RCTs using the same suture technique in both study arms that any suture material (fast-absorbable/slowly absorbable/non-absorbable) is superior in reducing incisional hernias. There is no evidence that continuous suturing is superior in reducing incisional hernias compared to interrupted suturing. When using a slowly absorbable suture for continuous suturing in elective midline closure, the small bites technique results in significantly less incisional hernias than a large bites technique (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19, 0.86).

Conclusions

There is no high-quality evidence available concerning the best suture material or technique to reduce incisional hernia rate when closing a laparotomy. When using a slowly absorbable suture and a continuous suturing technique with small tissue bites, the incisional hernia rate is significantly reduced compared with a large bites technique.

Alnassar S, Bawahab M, Abdoh A et al (2012) Incisional hernia postrepair of abdominal aortic occlusive and aneurysmal disease: five-year incidence. Vascular 20:273–277CrossRefPubMed

Bloemen A, van Dooren P, Huizinga BF et al (2011) Randomized clinical trial comparing polypropylene or polydioxanone for midline abdominal wall closure. Br J Surg 98:633–639CrossRefPubMed

Bosanquet DC, Ansell J, Abdelrahman T et al (2015) Systematic review and meta-regression of factors affecting midline incisional hernia rates: analysis of 14,618 patients. PLoS ONE 10:e0138745CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Deerenberg EB, Harlaar JJ, Steyerberg EW et al (2015) Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386:1254–1260CrossRefPubMed

Hoer J, Lawong G, Klinge U et al (2002) Factors influencing the development of incisional hernia. A retrospective study of 2,983 laparotomy patients over a period of 10 years. Chirurg 73:474–480CrossRefPubMed

Gillion JF, Sanders D, Miserez M et al (2016) The economic burden of incisional ventral hernia repair: a multicentric cost analysis. Hernia 20:819–830CrossRefPubMed

van Ramshorst GH, Eker HH, Hop WC et al (2012) Impact of incisional hernia on health-related quality of life and body image: a prospective cohort study. Am J Surg 204:144–150CrossRefPubMed

Sorensen L, Hemmingsen U, Kirkeby L et al (2005) Smoking is a risk factor for incisional hernia. Arch Surg 140:119–123CrossRefPubMed

Henriksen NA, Helgstrand F, Vogt KC et al (2013) Risk factors for incisional hernia repair after aortic reconstructive surgery in a nationwide study. J Vasc Surg 57:1524–1530CrossRefPubMed

10.

Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K et al (2015) European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia 19:1–24CrossRefPubMed

11.

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

12.

Van ‘t Riet M, Steyerberg EW, Nellensteyn J et al (2002) Meta-analysis of techniques for closure of midline abdominal incisions. Br J Surg 89:1350–1356CrossRefPubMed

13.

Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K et al (2010) Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 251:843–856CrossRefPubMed

14.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1–e34CrossRefPubMed

15.

Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). http://www.signacuk/methodology/indexhtml

16.

Berretta R, Rolla M, Patrelli TS et al (2010) Randomised prospective study of abdominal wall closure in patients with gynaecological cancer. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 50:391–396CrossRefPubMed

17.

Bresler L, Courbey PJ, Feldman L et al (1995) Results of a controlled trial comparing 3 suture threads at slow resorption for the closure of supra-umbilical midline laparotomies. Ann Chir 49:544–548PubMed

18.

Colombo M, Maggioni A, Parma G et al (1997) A randomized comparison of continuous versus interrupted mass closure of midline incisions in patients with gynecologic cancer. Obstet Gynecol 89:684–689CrossRefPubMed

19.

Deitel M, Alhindawi R, Yamen M et al (1990) Dexon plus versus Maxon fascial closure in morbid obesity: a prospective randomized comparison. Can J Surg 33:302–304PubMed

20.

Seiler CM, Bruckner T, Diener MK 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 249:576–582CrossRefPubMed

21.

Cameron AE, Parker CJ, Field ES et al (1987) A randomised comparison of polydioxanone (PDS) and polypropylene (Prolene) for abdominal wound closure. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 69:113–115PubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Carlson MA, Condon RE (1995) Polyglyconate (Maxon) versus nylon suture in midline abdominal incision closure: a prospective randomized trial. Am Surg 61:980–983PubMed

23.

Corman ML, Veidenheimer MC, Coller JA (1981) Controlled clinical trial of three suture materials for abdominal wall closure after bowl operations. Am J Surg 141:510–513CrossRefPubMed

24.

Gurjar V, Halvadia BM, Bharaney RP et al (2014) Study of two techniques for midline laparotomy fascial wound closure. Indian J Surg 76:91–94CrossRefPubMed

25.

Krukowski ZH, Cusick EL, Engeset J et al (1987) Polydioxanone or polypropylene for closure of midline abdominal incisions: a prospective comparative clinical trial. Br J Surg 74:828–830CrossRefPubMed

26.

Lewis RT, Wiegand FM (1989) Natural history of vertical abdominal parietal closure: prolene versus Dexon. Can J Surg 32:196–200PubMed

27.

Millbourn D, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA (2009) Effect of stitch length on wound complications after closure of midline incisions: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg 144:1056–1059CrossRefPubMed

28.

Wissing J, van Vroonhoven TJ, Schattenkerk ME et al (1987) Fascia closure after midline laparotomy: results of a randomized trial. Br J Surg 74:738–741CrossRefPubMed

29.

Gislason H, Gronbech JE, Soreide O (1995) Burst abdomen and incisional hernia after major gastrointestinal operations–comparison of three closure techniques. Eur J Surg 161:349–354PubMed

30.

Gys T, Hubens A (1989) A prospective comparative clinical study between monofilament absorbable and non-absorbable sutures for abdominal wall closure. Acta Chir Belg 89:265–270PubMed

31.

Osther PJ, Gjode P, Mortensen BB et al (1995) Randomized comparison of polyglycolic acid and polyglyconate sutures for abdominal fascial closure after laparotomy in patients with suspected impaired wound healing. Br J Surg 82:1080–1082CrossRefPubMed

32.

Richards PC, Balch CM, Aldrete JS (1983) Abdominal wound closure. A randomized prospective study of 571 patients comparing continuous vs. interrupted suture techniques. Ann Surg 197:238–243CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Sahlin S, Ahlberg J, Granstrom L et al (1993) Monofilament versus multifilament absorbable sutures for abdominal closure. Br J Surg 80:322–324CrossRefPubMed

34.

Agrawal V, Sharma N, Joshi MK et al (2009) Role of suture material and technique of closure in wound outcome following laparotomy for peritonitis. Trop Gastroenterol 30:237–240PubMed

35.

Lau FH, Pomahac B (2014) Wound healing in acutely injured fascia. Wound Repair Regen 22(Suppl 1):14–17CrossRefPubMed

36.

Midwood KS, Williams LV, Schwarzbauer JE (2004) Tissue repair and the dynamics of the extracellular matrix. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 36:1031–1037CrossRefPubMed

37.

Velnar T, Bailey T, Smrkolj V (2009) The wound healing process: an overview of the cellular and molecular mechanisms. J Int Med Res 37:1528–1542CrossRefPubMed

38.

Bourne RB, Bitar H, Andreae PR et al (1988) In-vivo comparison of four absorbable sutures: Vicryl, Dexon Plus, Maxon and PDS. Can J Surg 31:43–45PubMed

39.

Howes EL, Sooy JW, Harvey SC (1929) The healing of wounds as determined by their tensile strength. JAMA 92:42–45CrossRef

40.

Jenkins TP (1976) The burst abdominal wound: a mechanical approach. Br J Surg 63:873–876CrossRefPubMed

41.

Harlaar JJ, van Ramshorst GH, Nieuwenhuizen J et al (2009) Small stitches with small suture distances increase laparotomy closure strength. Am J Surg 198:392–395CrossRefPubMed

42.

Gurusamy KS, Toon CD, Davidson BR (2014) Subcutaneous closure versus no subcutaneous closure after non-caesarean surgical procedures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD010425

43.

Mackeen AD, Berghella V, Larsen ML (2012) Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:3577

44.

Lau B, Kim H, Haigh PI et al (2012) Obesity increases the odds of acquiring and incarcerating noninguinal abdominal wall hernias. Am Surg 78:1118–1121PubMed

45.

Rahbari NN, Knebel P, Kieser M et al (2012) Design and current status of CONTINT: continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy—a randomized controlled multicenter trial [NCT00544583]. Trials 13:72CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Meta-analysis on Materials and Techniques for Laparotomy Closure: The MATCH Review
Authors: N. A. Henriksen
E. B. Deerenberg
L. Venclauskas
R. H. Fortelny
M. Miserez
F. E. Muysoms
Publication date: 01-06-2018
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: World Journal of Surgery / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4393-9

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Meta-analysis on Materials and Techniques for Laparotomy Closure: The MATCH Review

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Important Research Elements in Aiding Training: Reply

Factors Associated with Premalignant Epithelial Changes in Chronic Calculous Cholecystitis: A Case–Control Study

The Application of a Performance-Based Self-Administered Intra-procedural Checklist on Surgical Trainees During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Radical Surgery Improves Survival in Patients with Stage 4 Neuroblastoma

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for cT1 Gastric Cancer

Pattern of Lower Intestinal Ostomies in a Low-Income Country: Case of Southeast of Niger Republic