Randomised-controlled feasibility trial on abdominal wall closure techniques in patients undergoing relaparotomy (ReLap study; DRKS00013001).
Abdominal surgery
Abdominal wall
Fascial closure
Relaparotomy
Journal
Langenbeck's archives of surgery
ISSN: 1435-2451
Titre abrégé: Langenbecks Arch Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9808285
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
03
04
2020
accepted:
25
05
2020
pubmed:
7
6
2020
medline:
29
6
2021
entrez:
7
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients undergoing relaparotomy are generally underrepresented in clinical trials, despite how common the procedure is in clinical practice. Specifically, techniques for re-do abdominal wall closure have never been evaluated in a randomised-controlled trial. The aim of this trial was to identify the optimal abdominal wall closure technique in patients undergoing relaparotomy. In this monocentric, randomised feasibility trial, patients scheduled for elective relaparotomy were randomised to abdominal wall closure with either the small stitches technique, using Monomax® 2-0, or the large stitches technique, using PDS II® 1 loop. Patients' postoperative courses were followed for 1 year after the index operation. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were compared at a level of significance of 5% between the two techniques. A total of 100 out of 131 patients (76.3%) were evenly randomised to the small stitches and large stitches groups. The time for abdominal wall closure did not differ between the two techniques (small stitches 27.5 ± 9.5 min versus large stitches 25.3 ± 12.4 min; p = 0.334). The overall comprehensive complication index was 14.4 ± 15.5 in the small stitches group and 19.9 ± 23.4 in the large stitches group (p = 0.168). Specifically, rates of surgical site infection (small stitches 30.0% versus large stitches 36.0%; p = 0.524) and burst abdomen (small stitches 4.0% versus large stitches 0.0%; p = 0.495) did not differ. After 1 year, incisional hernia rate was 7.5% in the small stitches group and 10.0% in the large stitches group (p > 0.999). Both abdominal wall closure techniques investigated in this trial were feasible in relaparotomy patients. This exploratory trial revealed no noticeable difference in the effectiveness or safety of the small stitches technique with Monomax® 2-0 versus the large stitches technique with PDS II® 1 loop. Therefore, surgeons should stay with their preferred suture technique in relaparotomy patients. Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien ( www.germanctr.de ): DRKS00013001.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patients undergoing relaparotomy are generally underrepresented in clinical trials, despite how common the procedure is in clinical practice. Specifically, techniques for re-do abdominal wall closure have never been evaluated in a randomised-controlled trial. The aim of this trial was to identify the optimal abdominal wall closure technique in patients undergoing relaparotomy.
METHODS
METHODS
In this monocentric, randomised feasibility trial, patients scheduled for elective relaparotomy were randomised to abdominal wall closure with either the small stitches technique, using Monomax® 2-0, or the large stitches technique, using PDS II® 1 loop. Patients' postoperative courses were followed for 1 year after the index operation. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were compared at a level of significance of 5% between the two techniques.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 100 out of 131 patients (76.3%) were evenly randomised to the small stitches and large stitches groups. The time for abdominal wall closure did not differ between the two techniques (small stitches 27.5 ± 9.5 min versus large stitches 25.3 ± 12.4 min; p = 0.334). The overall comprehensive complication index was 14.4 ± 15.5 in the small stitches group and 19.9 ± 23.4 in the large stitches group (p = 0.168). Specifically, rates of surgical site infection (small stitches 30.0% versus large stitches 36.0%; p = 0.524) and burst abdomen (small stitches 4.0% versus large stitches 0.0%; p = 0.495) did not differ. After 1 year, incisional hernia rate was 7.5% in the small stitches group and 10.0% in the large stitches group (p > 0.999).
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Both abdominal wall closure techniques investigated in this trial were feasible in relaparotomy patients. This exploratory trial revealed no noticeable difference in the effectiveness or safety of the small stitches technique with Monomax® 2-0 versus the large stitches technique with PDS II® 1 loop. Therefore, surgeons should stay with their preferred suture technique in relaparotomy patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien ( www.germanctr.de ): DRKS00013001.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32504207
doi: 10.1007/s00423-020-01903-1
pii: 10.1007/s00423-020-01903-1
pmc: PMC7359135
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
427-434Références
Li J, Qian K, Wu H, Zeng Y (2019) Effective preoperative abdominal incision planning on a patient with a history of repeated abdominal operations using a three-dimensional reconstruction technique: a case report. J Int Med Res 47(3):1359–1364
doi: 10.1177/0300060519828510
Lamont PM, Ellis H (1988) Incisional hernia in re-opened abdominal incisions: an overlooked risk factor. Br J Surg 75:374–376
doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800750426
Hackert T, Büchler WA (2014) The broad view of reoperative surgery. Reoperative Abdom Surg:10–16
van Ramshorst GH, Eker HH, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2012) Impact of incisional hernia on health-related quality of life and body image: a prospective cohort study. Am J Surg 204(2):144–150
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.01.012
Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, Buchler MW, Seiler CM (2010) Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 251:843–856
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d973e4
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(11):1056–1059
doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.189
Israelsson LA, Millbourn D (2012) Closing midline abdominal incisions. Langenbeck's Arch Surg 397(8):1201–1207
doi: 10.1007/s00423-012-1019-4
Deerenberg EB, Harlaar JJ, Steyerberg EW, Lont HE, van Doorn HC, Heisterkamp J, Wijnhoven BP, Schouten WR, Cense HA, Stockmann HB, Berends FJ, Dijkhuizen FPH, Dwarkasing RS, Jairam AP, van Ramshorst GH, Kleinrensink GJ, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2015) Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386:1254–1260
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60459-7
W.M. Association (2001) World medical association declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ 79(4):373
Tran DT, Doerr-Harim C, Hüttner FJ, Harnoss JC, Knebel P, Schneider M, Büchler MW, Diener MK, Probst P (2018) Protocol of a prospective mixed-methods study of patients undergoing relaparotomy (ReLap study; DRKS00013001). Int J Surg Protoc 9:6–10
doi: 10.1016/j.isjp.2018.04.004
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:c332
doi: 10.1136/bmj.c332
Coccolini F, Ansaloni L, Manfredi R, Campanati L, Poiasina E, Bertoli P, Capponi MG, Sartelli M, Saverio SD, Cucchi M, Lazzareschi D, Pisano M, Catena F (2013) Peritoneal adhesion index (PAI): proposal of a score for the “ignored iceberg” of medicine and surgery. World J Emerg Surg 8:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-8-6
doi: 10.1186/1749-7922-8-6
pubmed: 23369320
pmcid: 3573980
Dindo D (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Slankamenac K (2014) The comprehensive complication index: a novel and more sensitive endpoint for assessing outcome and reducing sample size in randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 260(5):757–762
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000948
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018) Surgical Site Infection https://www.cdc.gov/hai/ssi/ssi.html , (accessed 23rd February 2020)
Rabin R, Gudex C, Selai C, Herdman M (2014) From translation to version management: a history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Value Health 17(1):70–76
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.006
Probst P, Zaschke S, Heger P, Harnoss JC, Hüttner FJ, Mihaljevic AL, Knebel P, Diener MK (2019) Evidence-based recommendations for blinding in surgical trials. Langenbeck's Arch Surg 404(3):273–284
doi: 10.1007/s00423-019-01761-6
R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/ . (accessed September 12th 2019)
Korol E, Johnston K, Waser N, Sifakis F, Jafri HS, Lo M, Kyaw MH A systematic review of risk factors associated with surgical site infections among surgical patients. PLoS One 8:e83743. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083743
Isik O, Kaya E, Dundar HZ, Sarkut P (2015) Surgical site infection: re assessment of the Risk Factors. Chirurgia (Bucur) 110:457–461
Carvalho RLR, Campos CC, Franco LMC, Rocha AM, Ercole FF (2017) Incidence and risk factors for surgical site infection in general surgeries. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 25:e2848. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.1502.2848
doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.1502.2848
pubmed: 29211190
pmcid: 5738868
Cheng H, Chen BP, Soleas IM, Ferko NC, Cameron CG, Hinoul P (2017) Prolonged operative duration increases risk of surgical site infections: a systematic review. Surg Infect 18:722–735. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2017.089
doi: 10.1089/sur.2017.089
Bartlett DC, Kingsnorth AN (2009) Abdominal wound dehiscence and incisional hernia. Surgery 27:243–250
Williams ZF, Hope WW (2015) Abdominal wound closure: current perspectives. Open Access Surg 8:89–94
Seiler CM, Deckert A, Diener MK, Knaebel HP, Weigand MA, Victor N, Büchler MW (2009) Midline versus transverse incision in major abdominal surgery: a randomized, double-blind equivalence trial (POVATI: ISRCTN60734227). Ann Surg 249(6):913–920
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a77c92
Seiler CM, Bruckner T, Diener MK, Papyan A, Golcher H, Seidlmayer C, Franck A, Kieser M, Büchler MW, Knaebel HP (2009) Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions: a multicenter randomized trial (INSECT: ISRCTN24023541). Ann Surg 249(4):576–582
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31819ec6c8
Heger P, Feißt M, Krisam J, Klose C, Dörr-Harim C, Tenckhoff S, Büchler MW, Diener MK, Mihaljevic AL (2019) Hernia reduction following laparotomy using small stitch abdominal wall closure with and without mesh augmentation (the HULC trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 20(1):738
doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3921-3
Fink C, Baumann P, Wente MN, Knebel P, Bruckner T, Ulrich A, Werner J, Büchler MW, Diener MK (2014) Incisional hernia rate 3 years after midline laparotomy. Br J Surg 101(2):51–54
doi: 10.1002/bjs.9364