Mass closure versus layered closure of midline laparotomy incisions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20242053Keywords:
Mass closure, Layered closure, Laparotomy incisionsAbstract
Background: When surgeons started performing surgeries since 19th century, they have to impose wound on their patients and it is their duty to strive constantly to get these wounds to heal as quickly, reliably and severely as possible, and now the behaviour of surgical wound is largely predictable. This study aims to evaluate the benefits or otherwise between single layer closure and layered closure in a peripheral medical college.
Methods: All patients who have undergone emergency exploratory laparotomy in Department of General Surgery, College of Medicine and JNM Hospital, Kalyani
Results: In our study, out of 50 patients, most of the patients were >30 years old [19 (38.0%)]. Seven (28.0%) patients were >30 and <61 years of age in group A (mass closure) and 12 (48.0%) patients were >30 years of age in group B (layered closure). Age was not significantly associated with group in group A (mass closure) and group B (layered closure) (p=0.0540). We observed that, mean age was lower in group B (layered closure) (37.7600±14.8304) compared to group A (mass closure) (47.3600±15.0993) though it was statistically significant (p=0.0279).
Conclusions: In our study, out of 50 patients, most of the patients were >30 years old and age was not significantly associated with group in group A (mass closure) and group B (layered closure). We found that, male population and female population were equal in both two groups. Sex was significantly related with two groups. We observed that, Band adhesion and Perforated appendix were equal in both groups. Which was not statistically significant.
Metrics
References
Walter JB, Talbot IC, Gardner HA, Halloran PF, Zuckerman M, Bird AG, et al. Wound healing. In: General pathology. 7th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone. 1996;165-80.
Cuschieri A, Steel RJC, Moore AR. Surgical biology and pathological examination. 4th ed. London. Reed Educational and Professional Publishing. 2000.
Bewes P. Abdominal closure. Trop Doct. 2000;30(1):39.
Weioland DE, Bay RC, Delsordi S. Choosing the best abdominal closure by meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 1998;176(6):666-70.
Ikram MS. Incisional hernia. A study of etiological factors. Pak J Surg. 1995;11(3):146-8.
Challa V, Dhar A, Anand S, Srivastava A. Abdominal wound dehiscence: the science and art of its occurrence and prevention. In: Gupta RL, editor. Recent advances in surgery-11, 1st ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers. 2009;225-50.
Khan AA, Khan N, Qayyum A, Abbasi HJ. Comparison of continuous versus interrupted x-suturing technique for abdominal wall closure in emergency midline laparotomy wound. J Postgraduate Med Institute. 2018;32(4):390-4.
Deshmukh SN, Maske AN. Mass closure versus layered closure of midline laparotomy incisions: a prospective comparative study. Int Surg J. 2018;5(2):584-7.
Bhavikatti GS, GHV RG. Comparitive Study of Mass Closure and Layered Closure Techniques in Midline and Paramedian Laparotomies. Acad J Surg. 2019;2(1):42-6.
Sreeharsha MV. A comparative study of single layer closure and conventional layered closure of laparotomy wounds. J Evolution Med Dental Sci. 2013;2(40):7695-710.
Joshi D, Varandani N, Vaidya M. Study of Different Methods of Midline Laparotomy Incision Closure and their Outcomes. MVP J Med Sci. 2022;8(2):249-52.
Chalya PL, Massinde AN, Kihunrwa A, Mabula JB. Abdominal fascia closure following elective midline laparotomy: a surgical experience at a tertiary care hospital in Tanzania. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8(1):1-9.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
