, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 341–346 | Cite as

Reduced rate of incisional hernia after standardized fascial closure in emergency laparotomy

  • T. ThorupEmail author
  • M.-B. Tolstrup
  • I. Gögenur
Original Article



Emergency laparotomy is a high-risk procedure, and incisional hernia is a common complication. This study aimed to investigate whether a standardized fascial closure technique, using slowly absorbable monofilament suture in a ratio of at least 1:4, could reduce the long-term occurrence of incisional hernia after emergency laparotomy.


The single-center study was conducted as a questionnaire study including all patients who had an emergency laparotomy at Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev from May 2009 to May 2013 and June 2014 to November 2015. The historic cohort was used as a control. In the historic cohort of 2009–2013, different fascial closing techniques were used according to the preference of the individual surgeon. On June 1, 2014, we introduced a standardized method of fascial closure.


A total of 465 patients met our inclusion criteria. The response rate was 77%. In all, 104 patients developed an incisional hernia: 77(27.0%) in the historic group and 27(15.0%) in the 2014–2015 group (p = 0.02). At long-term follow-up, 104 patients had undergone elective incisional herniotomy or had an incisional hernia confirmed by a medical doctor. The rate of incisional hernia was reduced from 27.0 to 15.0% (p = 0.02) comparing years 2009–2013 with 2014–2015.


This study suggests that development of incisional hernia may be reduced significantly if a standardized technique is applied using slowly absorbable monofilament suture in a ratio of at least 1:4 in emergency laparotomies.


Emergency laparotomy Fascial closure Incisional hernia Fascial closure technique 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

TT has nothing to declare. MT has nothing to declare. IG has nothing to declare.

Ethical approval

Approval of data collection was obtained from the Danish Data Protection Agency HGH-2016-030 I-suite: 04477, and the Danish National Committee on Health Research Ethics was contacted but had no approval requirements because the new technique was used on all patients with consecutive inclusion and did not depend on randomization or study protocol.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies directly involving human participants, as it is a questionnaire study with data already collected.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained with all questionnaires collected.


  1. 1.
    Vester-Andersen M, Lundstrom LH, Moller MH et al (2014) Mortality and postoperative care pathways after emergency gastrointestinal surgery in 2904 patients: a population-based cohort study. Br J Anaesth 112:860–870. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wolsted H, Møller AM, Tolstrup M-B, Vester-Andersen M (2017) A description of deaths following emergency abdominal surgery. World J Surg 41:3105–3110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tolstrup M-B, Watt SK, Gögenur I (2016) Morbidity and mortality rates after emergency abdominal surgery: an analysis of 4346 patients scheduled for emergency laparotomy or laparoscopy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 402:1–9. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jeppesen M, Tolstrup M-B, Gögenur I (2016) Chronic pain, quality of life, and functional impairment after surgery due to small bowel obstruction. World J Surg 40:2091–2097. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Israelsson LA, Millbourn D (2013) Prevention of incisional hernias: how to close a midline incision. Surg Clin N Am 93:1027–1040. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K et al (2015) European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia 19:1–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tolstrup M-B, Watt SK, Gögenur I (2016) Reduced rate of dehiscence after implementation of a standardized fascial closure technique in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Ann Surg. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML et al (1999) Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 20:250–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H et al (2012) Reoperation versus clinical recurrence rate after ventral hernia repair. Ann Surg 256:955–958. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fink C, Baumann P, Wente MN et al (2013) Incisional hernia rate 3 years after midline laparotomy. Br J Surg 101:51–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Israelsson LA, Jonsson T (1996) Incisional hernia after midline laparotomy: a prospective study. Eur J Surg 162:125–129Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moussavian MR, Schuld J, Dauer D et al (2010) Long term follow up for incisional hernia after severe secondary peritonitis-incidence and risk factors. Am J Surg 200:229–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Claes K, Beckers R, Heindryckx E et al. (2014) Retrospective observational study on the incidence of incisional hernias after colorectal carcinoma resection with follow-up CT scan. Hernia 18:797–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K et al (2010) Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 251:843–856. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Höer J, Lawong G, Klinge U, Schumpelick V (2002) Einflussfaktoren der Narbenhernienentstehung Retrospektive Untersuchung an 2.983 laparotomierten Patienten über einen Zeitraum von 10 Jahren. Der Chirurg 73:474–480. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischer JP, Basta MN, Mirzabeigi MN et al (2016) A risk model and cost analysis of incisional hernia after elective, abdominal surgery based upon 12,373 cases: the case for targeted prophylactic intervention. Ann Surg 263:1010–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walming S, Angenete E, Block M et al (2017) Retrospective review of risk factors for surgical wound dehiscence and incisional hernia. BMC Surg 17:19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kurmann A, Barnetta C, Candinas D, Beldi G (2013) Implantation of prophylactic nonabsorbable intraperitoneal mesh in patients with peritonitis is safe and feasible. World J Surg 37:1656–1660. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Argudo N, Pereira JA, Sancho JJ et al (2014) Acute care surgery prophylactic synthetic mesh can be safely used to close emergency laparotomies, even in peritonitis. Surgery 156:1238–1244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Israelsson LA (1998) The surgeon as a risk factor for complications of midline incisions. Eur J Surg 164:353–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, GastroenhedenCopenhagen University Hospital HerlevHerlevDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryZealand University HospitalKoegeDenmark

Personalised recommendations