Comparison Between Continuous and Interrupted Fascial Closure in Emergency Midline Laparotomy

Fatima Shahab

doi:10.70749/ijbr.v3i5.1307

Authors

Fatima Shahab Surgical Unit-4, Allied II/DHQ Hospital / Faisalabad Medical University, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i5.1307

Keywords:

Emergency Laparotomy, Interrupted Closure, Wound Dehiscence, Burst Abdomen, Suture Techniques

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of interrupted versus continuous fascial closure techniques in emergency midline laparotomy in terms of the frequency of burst abdomen. Study Setting: Department of Surgery, DHQ Hospital, Faisalabad. Duration of Study: July 31, 2024 to January 31, 2025 (Six months following approval of the synopsis) Data Collection: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on 150 patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy. Patients were randomly assigned to either interrupted (n=75) or continuous (n=75) closure techniques. The primary outcome was burst abdomen, assessed over a 30-day postoperative period. Results: The incidence of burst abdomen was significantly lower in the interrupted closure group (4 cases, 20.0%) compared to the continuous closure group (16 cases, 80.0%) (p = 0.004). Stratified analysis showed that the continuous closure technique was associated with a significantly higher risk of burst abdomen across different age groups, gender, and BMI categories. However, there was no significant difference in superficial surgical site infections between the two groups (p = 0.273). Conclusion: Interrupted fascial closure significantly reduces the incidence of burst abdomen in emergency midline laparotomy compared to continuous closure. Given its effectiveness in preventing wound dehiscence, interrupted closure should be preferred in emergency settings. Further multicenter trials with extended follow-up periods are warranted to confirm long-term outcomes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Badkur M, Ram S, Patel S, Gupta A. Comparison between continuous vs. interrupted X-suture for midline laparotomy wound closure. Gen Surg: Open Access 2020;3(1):12-14.

Polychronidis G, Rahbari NN, Bröckner T, Sander A, Sommer F, Setuni Usta Y, et al. Continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy: CONTINT: a randomized controlled trial [NCT00514583]. World J Emerg Surg. 2023;18(1).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00517-4

Bansiwal RK, Mittal T, Sharma R, Gupta S, Singh S, Abhishek K, et al. Comparative study of abdominal wound dehiscence in continuous versus interrupted fascial closure after emergency midline laparotomy. Int Surg J. 2019;6(3):886-91.

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20190819

Begum J, Ullah AF, Islam I, Amin A, Mansur A, Uttak Kumar Das. Comparison between Interrupted X suture and continuous suture for closure of midline incision in emergency laparotomy: A randomized controlled trial. CMOSHMC Journal 2022;21(2):524.

https://doi.org/10.3329/cmoshmcj.v21i2.63130

Balaji C, Neogi S, Ramasamy S, Vats M. Comparison of interrupted-X technique closure versus conventional continuous closure of rectus sheath: a randomized control study. Int Surg J. 2019;6(9):3233-37.

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20194057

Hegazy T, Soliman S. Abdominal wall dehiscence in emergency midline laparotomy: incidence and risk factors. Egypt J Surg. 2020;39(2):489.

https://doi.org/10.4103/ejs.ejs_7_20

Frassini S, Cobianchi L, Fugazzola P, Biffi WL, Coccolini F, Damaskos D, et al. ECLAPTE: Effective Closure of Laparotomy in Emergency—2023 World Society of Emergency Surgery guidelines for the closure of laparotomy in emergency settings. World J Emerg Surg. 2023;18(1):42.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrad130

Wolf S, Arbórrá de Gracia L, Sommer F, Schrempf MC, Anthuber M, Vlasenko D. Continuous and interrupted abdominal-wall closure after primary emergency midline laparotomy (CONIAC-trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled single-centre trial. BMJ Open. 2022;12(11):e059709.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059709

ZABD-UR-REHMAN AR, NAVEED M, JAVEED MU, AKBAR A. Comparison of wound dehiscence in interrupted with continuous closure of laparotomy. PJMHS 2013;13:826-9.

Nasir, M., Siddique, M., Zaeem, A., Raza, A., Rizwan, M. and Abbas, M., 2025. Comparison of Continuous Versus Simple Interrupted Polypropylene Suture Closure of Midline Emergency Laparotomy Wound in Terms of Wound Outcome in Adult Patients Presenting with Acute Abdomen: Continuous Vs Interrupted Polypropylene Suture Closure of Laparotomy Wound. Pakistan Journal of Health Sciences 2025;283-8.

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v6i1.2634

Bansiwal RK, Mittal T, Sharma R, Gupta S, Singh S, Abhishek K, Attri AK. Comparative study of abdominal wound dehiscence in continuous versus interrupted fascial closure after emergency midline laparotomy. Int Surg J 2019;6(3):886-91.

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20190819

Polychronidis G, Rahbari NN, Bruckner T, Sander A, Sommer F, Usta S, Hermann J, Albers MB, Sargut M, Knebel P, Klotz R. Continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy: CONTINT: a randomized controlled trial [NCT00544583]. World Journal of Emergency Surgery 2023;18(1):51.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00517-4

Mehdorn, M., Groos, L., Kassahun, W. et al. Interrupted sutures prevent recurrent abdominal fascial dehiscence: a comparative retrospective single center cohort analysis of risk factors of burst abdomen and its recurrence as well as surgical repair techniques. BMC Surg 2021;21:208.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-021-01219-x

Khan TH, Jaffer ZM, Ullah R, Malik AH, Hayat A, Hayat Q. Effectiveness of Continuous versus Interrupted Closure of Midline Wound in Emergency Laparotomies in Terms of Wound Dehiscence. Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research 2024;4(1):1102-7.

https://doi.org/10.61919/jhrr.v4i1.564

Kumar B, Kumar B, Alam K. Comparison of Continuous versus Interrupted Abdominal Wall Closure Techniques after Emergency Midline Laparotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research 2024;16(6);454-62.

Tofigh AM, Jafarzadeh MH. Comparison of peritoneal closure versus non-closure after non-infected elective laparotomy with a midline incision: a randomized clinical trial. Shiraz E-Medical Journal 2021;22(9).

https://doi.org/10.5812/semj.108419

Lozada Hernández EE, Hernández Bonilla JP, Hinojosa Ugarte D, Magdaleno García M, Mayagoitía González JC, Zúñiga Vázquez LA, Obregón Moreno E, Jiménez Herevia AE, Cethorth Fonseca RK, Ramírez Guerrero P. Abdominal wound dehiscence and incisional hernia prevention in midline laparotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery 2023;408(1):268.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-02954-w

Yii E, Onggo J, Yii MK. Small bite versus large bite stitching technique for midline laparotomy wound closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian journal of surgery 2023;46(11):4719-26.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.08.124

Deerenberg EB, Henriksen NA, Antoniou GA, Antoniou SA, Bramer WM, Fischer JP, Fortelny RH, Gök H, Harris HW, Hope W, Horne CM. Updated guideline for closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies. British Journal of Surgery 2022;109(12):1239-50.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac302

Fortelny RH. The best closure technique without mesh in elective midline laparotomy closure. Journal of Abdominal Wall Surgery 2022;1:10962.

https://doi.org/10.3389/jaws.2022.10962

Dhamnaskar SS, Sawarkar PC, Vijayakumaran P, Mandal S. Comparative study of efficacy of modified continuous smead-jones versus interrupted method of midline laparotomy fascial closure for contaminated cases. International Surgery Journal 2016;3(4):1751.

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20163541