Comparison of outcome of interrupted versus continuous closure technique of rectus sheath in emergency laparotomies patients in terms of wound dehiscence.

Abstract

Objective: To compare outcome of interrupted versus continuous closure of rectus sheath in emergency laparotomy patients, in terms of wound dehiscence. Study Design: Randomized Controlled Trail. Setting: Department of Casualty Surgical Pir Abdul Qadir Shah Institute of Medical Sciences, Gambat. Period: 1st January to 30th June 2020. Material & Methods: Total duration of study was 6 months. Total of 150 patients (75 in each group) were studied. Interrupted closure of rectus sheath was done in group “A” patients while continuous closure was done in group “B” patients, and efficacy in terms of wound dehiscence was compared in both groups. Results: Overall male to female ratio was1.29:1. The average age of the patients was 39.41 years +13.02SD. Wound dehiscence in Group “A” was found in 2.6% cases while 6.6% in Group “B” patients. Conclusion: Interrupted closure of Rectus sheath in emergency laparotomy is more effective than continuous closure in preventing wound dehiscence.

Effectiveness of Continuous versus Interrupted Closure of Midline Wound in Emergency Laparotomies in Terms of Wound Dehiscence

“…Murtaza B also reported similar trends with a 10% dehiscence rate in a modified technique compared to 20% in a continuous technique (24,25). A comprehensive meta-analysis by Himanshu Gupta et al encompassed 23 trials and concluded that interrupted abdominal closure was associated with a significantly reduced risk of wound dehiscence, 2.17% compared to 14.8% in the continuous group, although the incidence of incisional hernias was comparable between the two techniques (26). Wound dehiscence is a grave complication, with mortality rates as high as 45% in some cases, and an incidence rate ranging from 0.3-3.5%, spiking to 10% in elderly patients (27).…”