BACKGROUND: There are no accepted guidelines for the closure of laparotomy incisions in patients of peritonitis. As these patients differ from the patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery, the same recommendations for closure may not be applicable in both groups. AIM: To compare wound outcome parameters following closure of the laparotomy incision with absorbable and non-absorbable suture material using the continuous and interrupted techniques in patients of peritonitis. METHOD: A single blinded randomised controlled trial using Polygalactin-910 and Polypropylene, number 1 sutures, to close midline vertical incisions, placed in continuous and interrupted manner, was performed on 174 patients. Patients were randomised into four groups: Group A (Polygalactin-910 continuous suturing, n=40), B (Polygalactin-910 interrupted suturing, n=47), C (Polypropylene continuous suturing, n=45) and D (Polypropylene interrupted suturing, n=42). The incidence of wound infection, dehiscence, suture sinus formation and incisional hernia was recorded. Patients were followed up for a period of four years. Statistical analysis involved the chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. A 'p' value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The study included 139 male and 35 female patients between the ages of 10 and 75 years. The incidence of wound infection (p=0.656), dehiscence (p=0.997), and incisional hernia (p=0.930) at 3 months and four years (p= 0.910) was not statistically significant. There was no sinus formation in groups A and B, however 2 patients of group C and 6 patients of group D did develop suture sinus (p=0.003). CONCLUSION:Suture material and technique of closure does not influence wound outcome in patients of peritonitis except for a significantly lower incidence of sinus formation when non-absorbable sutures are used.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There are no accepted guidelines for the closure of laparotomy incisions in patients of peritonitis. As these patients differ from the patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery, the same recommendations for closure may not be applicable in both groups. AIM: To compare wound outcome parameters following closure of the laparotomy incision with absorbable and non-absorbable suture material using the continuous and interrupted techniques in patients of peritonitis. METHOD: A single blinded randomised controlled trial using Polygalactin-910 and Polypropylene, number 1 sutures, to close midline vertical incisions, placed in continuous and interrupted manner, was performed on 174 patients. Patients were randomised into four groups: Group A (Polygalactin-910 continuous suturing, n=40), B (Polygalactin-910 interrupted suturing, n=47), C (Polypropylene continuous suturing, n=45) and D (Polypropylene interrupted suturing, n=42). The incidence of wound infection, dehiscence, suture sinus formation and incisional hernia was recorded. Patients were followed up for a period of four years. Statistical analysis involved the chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. A 'p' value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The study included 139 male and 35 female patients between the ages of 10 and 75 years. The incidence of wound infection (p=0.656), dehiscence (p=0.997), and incisional hernia (p=0.930) at 3 months and four years (p= 0.910) was not statistically significant. There was no sinus formation in groups A and B, however 2 patients of group C and 6 patients of group D did develop suture sinus (p=0.003). CONCLUSION: Suture material and technique of closure does not influence wound outcome in patients of peritonitis except for a significantly lower incidence of sinus formation when non-absorbable sutures are used.