R. Singal, Mohinder Kumar, Nitin Kaushik, Siddhartha Dhar, Bir Singh
{"title":"聚二氧环酮与尼龙用于腹膜炎断续8字形腹壁闭合的比较研究","authors":"R. Singal, Mohinder Kumar, Nitin Kaushik, Siddhartha Dhar, Bir Singh","doi":"10.14740/JCS306E","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In emergency and elective settings, some surgeons prefer continuous or interrupted closure of abdominal fascia, because in a continuous suturing, cutting out of even a single bite of tissue leads to opening of the entire wound and high risk of burst abdomen, whereas in interrupted method, they found much lower risk of burst abdomen. The aim is to assess the complication rate with the same closure technique between two different sutures. The best suture is one that maintains tensile strength throughout the healing process with good tissue approximation and less wound infection, is well tolerated by patient and is technically simple and expedient. The aim was to compare the non-absorbable sutures (nylon) and delayed absorbable sutures (polydioxanone (PDS)) for abdominal wall closure in cases of peritonitis. We used a different technique to close the abdominal wall fascia and study the postoperative complications. Methods: This was a prospective study carried out in the Department of Surgery, MMIMSR, Mullana, Ambala from March 2014 to April 2015, a single unit by a single surgeon. A total of 60 patients underwent interrupted closure of abdominal fascia by figure of eight techniques with polyamide (nylon No. 1) suture in group A and polydiaxanone (PDS No. 1) suture in group B. The incidence rates of wound infection, dehiscence, suture sinus formation and incisional hernia were recorded. Patients were followed up for a period of 1 year. Results: Out of the 60 patients, the rates of wound pain, discharge and dehiscence in group A were 30%, 23.3% and 26.7% and in group B were 6.7%, 16.6% and 23.3%. There was 0 burst abdomen in group A compared to one burst abdomen in group B. Suture sinus formation, chronic wound infection and stitch granuloma was one each in group A and was 0 in group B. Incisional hernia was not found in any of the group. We have concluded that condition of the wound depends on the comorbidity of the patient like smoking, malnutrition, and old peritonitis. It also mainly depends on the technique used for closure of the wound and also on the material used. Conclusion: Though wound complications were found more in non-absorbable suture but the rate of wound complications between the two sutures was found insignificant. The purpose of the study is to assess the presence of differences in abdominal wall closure in patients with risk criteria, with the same closure technique between slowly absorbable sutures and non-absorbable sutures. Sutures were placed and tied such that fascial edges were well approximated but not compressed tightly together. J Curr Surg. 2016;6(3-4):65-72 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcs306e","PeriodicalId":93115,"journal":{"name":"Journal of current surgery","volume":"15 1","pages":"65-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparative Study of Polydioxanone and Nylon for Abdominal Wall Closure With Interrupted Figure of Eight in Peritonitis Cases\",\"authors\":\"R. Singal, Mohinder Kumar, Nitin Kaushik, Siddhartha Dhar, Bir Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.14740/JCS306E\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: In emergency and elective settings, some surgeons prefer continuous or interrupted closure of abdominal fascia, because in a continuous suturing, cutting out of even a single bite of tissue leads to opening of the entire wound and high risk of burst abdomen, whereas in interrupted method, they found much lower risk of burst abdomen. The aim is to assess the complication rate with the same closure technique between two different sutures. The best suture is one that maintains tensile strength throughout the healing process with good tissue approximation and less wound infection, is well tolerated by patient and is technically simple and expedient. The aim was to compare the non-absorbable sutures (nylon) and delayed absorbable sutures (polydioxanone (PDS)) for abdominal wall closure in cases of peritonitis. We used a different technique to close the abdominal wall fascia and study the postoperative complications. Methods: This was a prospective study carried out in the Department of Surgery, MMIMSR, Mullana, Ambala from March 2014 to April 2015, a single unit by a single surgeon. A total of 60 patients underwent interrupted closure of abdominal fascia by figure of eight techniques with polyamide (nylon No. 1) suture in group A and polydiaxanone (PDS No. 1) suture in group B. The incidence rates of wound infection, dehiscence, suture sinus formation and incisional hernia were recorded. Patients were followed up for a period of 1 year. Results: Out of the 60 patients, the rates of wound pain, discharge and dehiscence in group A were 30%, 23.3% and 26.7% and in group B were 6.7%, 16.6% and 23.3%. There was 0 burst abdomen in group A compared to one burst abdomen in group B. Suture sinus formation, chronic wound infection and stitch granuloma was one each in group A and was 0 in group B. Incisional hernia was not found in any of the group. We have concluded that condition of the wound depends on the comorbidity of the patient like smoking, malnutrition, and old peritonitis. It also mainly depends on the technique used for closure of the wound and also on the material used. Conclusion: Though wound complications were found more in non-absorbable suture but the rate of wound complications between the two sutures was found insignificant. The purpose of the study is to assess the presence of differences in abdominal wall closure in patients with risk criteria, with the same closure technique between slowly absorbable sutures and non-absorbable sutures. Sutures were placed and tied such that fascial edges were well approximated but not compressed tightly together. J Curr Surg. 2016;6(3-4):65-72 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcs306e\",\"PeriodicalId\":93115,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of current surgery\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"65-72\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of current surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14740/JCS306E\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of current surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/JCS306E","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
摘要
背景:在急诊和择期情况下,一些外科医生倾向于连续或间断缝合腹筋膜,因为在连续缝合中,即使切掉一小口组织也会导致整个伤口裂开,腹部破裂的风险很高,而间断缝合的腹部破裂风险要低得多。目的是评估两种不同缝合线之间相同缝合技术的并发症发生率。最好的缝线是在整个愈合过程中保持抗拉强度,良好的组织近似和较少的伤口感染,患者能很好地耐受,技术上简单易行。目的是比较不可吸收缝合线(尼龙)和延迟吸收缝合线(聚二氧环酮(PDS))在腹膜炎病例中的腹壁闭合效果。我们采用不同的技术关闭腹壁筋膜并研究术后并发症。方法:前瞻性研究于2014年3月至2015年4月在Ambala Mullana MMIMSR外科进行,单个单位,单个外科医生。A组采用聚酰胺(尼龙1号)缝线,b组采用聚二axanone (PDS 1号)缝线,采用8字图间断缝合腹筋膜60例,记录伤口感染、裂开、缝合窦形成及切口疝的发生率。患者随访1年。结果:60例患者中,A组创面疼痛、出血、开裂发生率分别为30%、23.3%和26.7%,B组分别为6.7%、16.6%和23.3%。A组0例腹裂,b组1例腹裂。A组缝线窦形成、慢性创面感染、缝线肉芽肿各1例,b组0例,无切口疝。我们得出结论,伤口的状况取决于患者的合并症,如吸烟、营养不良和陈旧性腹膜炎。这也主要取决于缝合伤口所用的技术和所用的材料。结论:不可吸收缝线虽然创面并发症较多,但两种缝线间创面并发症发生率无明显差异。本研究的目的是评估具有风险标准的患者在使用相同的闭合技术时,缓慢可吸收缝合线和不可吸收缝合线的腹壁闭合是否存在差异。缝合线的放置和绑扎使筋膜边缘很好地接近,但不会紧紧地压在一起。contemporary surgery . 2016;6(3-4):65-72 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcs306e
A Comparative Study of Polydioxanone and Nylon for Abdominal Wall Closure With Interrupted Figure of Eight in Peritonitis Cases
Background: In emergency and elective settings, some surgeons prefer continuous or interrupted closure of abdominal fascia, because in a continuous suturing, cutting out of even a single bite of tissue leads to opening of the entire wound and high risk of burst abdomen, whereas in interrupted method, they found much lower risk of burst abdomen. The aim is to assess the complication rate with the same closure technique between two different sutures. The best suture is one that maintains tensile strength throughout the healing process with good tissue approximation and less wound infection, is well tolerated by patient and is technically simple and expedient. The aim was to compare the non-absorbable sutures (nylon) and delayed absorbable sutures (polydioxanone (PDS)) for abdominal wall closure in cases of peritonitis. We used a different technique to close the abdominal wall fascia and study the postoperative complications. Methods: This was a prospective study carried out in the Department of Surgery, MMIMSR, Mullana, Ambala from March 2014 to April 2015, a single unit by a single surgeon. A total of 60 patients underwent interrupted closure of abdominal fascia by figure of eight techniques with polyamide (nylon No. 1) suture in group A and polydiaxanone (PDS No. 1) suture in group B. The incidence rates of wound infection, dehiscence, suture sinus formation and incisional hernia were recorded. Patients were followed up for a period of 1 year. Results: Out of the 60 patients, the rates of wound pain, discharge and dehiscence in group A were 30%, 23.3% and 26.7% and in group B were 6.7%, 16.6% and 23.3%. There was 0 burst abdomen in group A compared to one burst abdomen in group B. Suture sinus formation, chronic wound infection and stitch granuloma was one each in group A and was 0 in group B. Incisional hernia was not found in any of the group. We have concluded that condition of the wound depends on the comorbidity of the patient like smoking, malnutrition, and old peritonitis. It also mainly depends on the technique used for closure of the wound and also on the material used. Conclusion: Though wound complications were found more in non-absorbable suture but the rate of wound complications between the two sutures was found insignificant. The purpose of the study is to assess the presence of differences in abdominal wall closure in patients with risk criteria, with the same closure technique between slowly absorbable sutures and non-absorbable sutures. Sutures were placed and tied such that fascial edges were well approximated but not compressed tightly together. J Curr Surg. 2016;6(3-4):65-72 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcs306e