COMPARISON OF INCIDENCE OF WOUND COMPLICATIONS: SMALL BITES VS. LARGE BITES FOR ABDOMINAL WOUND CLOSURE

Main Article Content

Dr. Qurat Ul Ain
Dr. Muhammad Iqbal
Dr. Sara Khalid Memon
Dr. Mahak Qureshi
Dr. Erum Halim
Dr. Rihan Aslam Khan

Keywords

Abdominal wound closure, Large bites, Small bites, Surgical site infection, Wound dehiscence

Abstract

Introduction: Abdominal surgery is a typical medical system performed to address different gastrointestinal, gynecological, and urological conditions. Effective wound conclusion is of foremost significance to guarantee ideal post-usable recuperation and forestall possible complications. Objectives: This study aims to compare the incidence of wound complications between small bites and large bites techniques in abdominal wound closure.


Material and methods: This comparative study was conducted at Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro Pakistan, from January 2023 to July 2023.  A total of 210 patients were included in this study. The patients underwent abdominal surgeries and were randomly assigned to two groups: small bites closure group and large bites closure group. The small bites group received sutures with smaller bite intervals, while the large bites group received sutures with larger bite intervals. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of wound complications, including surgical site infections, wound dehiscence, and seroma formation.


Results: Data were collected from 210 patients of both genders. Mean age of patients in group A is 52.3±8.6 years and in group B 50.9±7.9 years. There is 102 female patients and 108 male patients. Patients assign randomly in both groups, so 105 in group A and 105 in group B. During the post-operative period, wound assessments revealed a total of 20 patients (9.5%) in the small bites group experienced wound complications.


Conclusion: It is concluded that there is no statistically significant difference in the overall incidence of wound complications, including wound dehiscence, wound infections, and delayed wound healing, between the two groups.


 

Abstract 44 | pdf Downloads 6

References

1. 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. Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015 Sep 26;386(10000):1254-1260. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60459-7. Epub 2015 Jul 15. PMID: 26188742.
2. Harlaar JJ, Deerenberg EB, Dwarkasing RS, Kamperman AM, Kleinrensink GJ, Jeekel J et al. Development of incisional herniation aft er midline laparotomy. BJS open. 2017;1(1):18-23
3. Deerenberg EB, Harlaar JJ, Steyerberg EW, Lont HE, van Doorn HC, Heisterkamp J, et al. Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2015;386(10000):1254-60
4. Mersheimer WL, Winfield JM. Abdominal wound disruption: A review of the etiology, recognition and management. Surg Clin North Am. 1955;35(2):471-85.
5. Sharma R, Kaur A, Sharma M, Singh K, Singh NR.Abdominal midline wound closure with small bites versus large bites:a randomized comparative trial. Int Surg J2020;7:1391-6.
6. Jairam AP, Timmermans L, Eker HH, Pierik REGJM, van Klaveren D, Steyerberg EW, Timman R, van der Ham AC, Dawson I, Charbon JA, Schuhmacher C, Mihaljevic A, Izbicki JR, Fikatas P, Knebel P, Fortelny RH, Kleinrensink GJ, Lange JF, Jeekel HJ; PRIMA Trialist Group. Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement versus primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): 2-year follow-up of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017 Aug 5;390(10094):567-576. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31332-6. Epub 2017 Jun 20. Erratum in: Lancet. 2017 Aug 5;390(10094):554. PMID: 28641875.
7. van Ramshorst GH, Vos MC, den Hartog D, et al. A comparative assessment of surgeons’ tracking methods for surgical site infections. Surg Infect 2013; 14: 181–87.
8. Söderbäck, H., Masood, A., Leo, J. et al. Introduction of Small Stitch Small Bite technique: a retrospective long-term follow-up. Langenbecks Arch Surg 407, 2527–2535 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-022-02530-8
9. Albertsmeier, M., Hofmann, A., Baumann, P. et al. Effects of the short-stitch technique for midline abdominal closure: short-term results from the randomised-controlled ESTOIH trial. Hernia 26, 87–95 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-021-02410-y
10. Burt, B.M., Tavakkolizadeh, A. and Ferzoco, S.J. (2007) Incisions, Closures, and Management of Abdominal Wound. In: Zinner, M.J. and Ashley, S.W., Eds., Maingot’s Abdominal Operations, McGraw-Hill, New York, 71-101.
11. El Charif, M.H., Hassan, Z., Hoballah, J. et al. Protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing wound COmplications in elective midline laparotomies after FAscia Closure using two different Techniques Of Running sutures: COFACTOR trial. Trials 21, 608 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04507-8
12. Williams Z, Hope W. Abdominal wound closure: current perspectives. Open Access Surgery. 2015;8:89-94 https://doi.org/10.2147/OAS.S60958
13. Nasir GA, Baker KK. Continous double loop closure for midline laparotomy wounds. Saudi Med J. 2001;22(4):351.
14. Gurusamy KS, Cassar DE, Davidson BR. Peritoneal closure versus no peritoneal closure for patients undergoing non-obstetric abdominal operations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD010424.
15. Milbourn, D., Cengiz, Y. and Israelsson, L.A. (2009) Effect of Stitch Length on Wound Complications after Closure of Midline Incisions. The Archives of Surgery, 144, 1056-1059.

Most read articles by the same author(s)