BACKGROUND: Within the last decade the customary trend of using non absorbable sutures has changed, with numerous studies and meta-analyses advocating the use of slowly absorbable sutures, claiming comparable wound strength with significantly lower incidence of wound complications. It was the objective of this randomized clinical trial to compare two universally accepted suture materials, the non-absorbable Nylon and the slowly absorbable Polydioxanone for midline abdominal closure in the Indian context. METHOD:64 patients undergoingmidline laparotomy were allocated, using block randomization, to mass closure of the abdominal wall with continuous polyamide (34 patients) or continuous polydioxanone (30 patients). RESULTS: There was an alarmingly higher incidence of wound dehiscence in the PDS group requiring secondary suturing (Nylon 0; PDS 5). Mid-way through the trial, an interim analysis was performed which revealed an unacceptably high incidence of wound dehiscence in the PDS group. This necessitated a premature curtailment of the study. There was, however, a statistically significantly higher incidence of scar pain in the Nylon group (Nylon 9; PDS 1). CONCLUSION: There is a need for a study with larger series, and PDS as a choice of suture for midline wound closure cannot be recommended.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Within the last decade the customary trend of using non absorbable sutures has changed, with numerous studies and meta-analyses advocating the use of slowly absorbable sutures, claiming comparable wound strength with significantly lower incidence of wound complications. It was the objective of this randomized clinical trial to compare two universally accepted suture materials, the non-absorbable Nylon and the slowly absorbable Polydioxanone for midline abdominal closure in the Indian context. METHOD: 64 patients undergoing midline laparotomy were allocated, using block randomization, to mass closure of the abdominal wall with continuous polyamide (34 patients) or continuous polydioxanone (30 patients). RESULTS: There was an alarmingly higher incidence of wound dehiscence in the PDS group requiring secondary suturing (Nylon 0; PDS 5). Mid-way through the trial, an interim analysis was performed which revealed an unacceptably high incidence of wound dehiscence in the PDS group. This necessitated a premature curtailment of the study. There was, however, a statistically significantly higher incidence of scar pain in the Nylon group (Nylon 9; PDS 1). CONCLUSION: There is a need for a study with larger series, and PDS as a choice of suture for midline wound closure cannot be recommended.