Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Interrupted X-Suture Prevents Burst Abdomen: Analysis of 5 Randomised Controlled Trials from India

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Burst abdomen is a grave complication of laparotomy. X-suturing has been developed as a new method for reducing risk of burst abdomen. Five randomised controlled trials were conducted comparing X-suture with continuous suture in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The analysis of pooled data is presented. Data from five randomised controlled trials were collated. Data on individual patients were obtained from each centre on an Excel database format. A total of 1005 patients undergoing emergency laparotomy were studied. Of these 494 patients were randomised to X-suture arm and 511 to the continuous suture arm. The occurrence of burst abdomen was the main outcome of interest and the suture technique the main predictor of burst. The continuous suture group was considered the reference category. Risk ratio, risk difference, attributable proportion in exposed and prevented fraction in the exposed were calculated. Burst abdomen occurred in 9.31% patients in the X-suture group and in 20.35% patients in the continuous suture group. The risk difference (11%) and relative risk = 0.45 were highly significant (p = 0.0001) with a prevented fraction = 54%. Presence of diabetes, intraperitoneal sepsis, uraemia, and raised serum bilirubin were associated with increased risk of burst abdomen. The risk of burst abdomen can be substantially reduced with the use of X-suture in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shukla HS, Kumar S, Misra MC, Naithani YP (1981) Burst abdomen and suture material: a comparison of abdominal wound closure with monofilament nylon and chromic catgut. Ind J Surg 43:487–491

    Google Scholar 

  2. Srivastava A, Roy S, Sahay KB, Seenu V, Kumar A, Chumber S, Bal S, Mehta SN (2004) Prevention of burst abdominal wound by a new technique: a randomized trial comparing continuous versus interrupted X-suture. Ind J Surg 66:19–27

    Google Scholar 

  3. Challa V, Dhar A, Anand S, Srivastava A (2009) Chapter 11, Abdominal wounddehiscence: thescience and art ofitsoccurrence and prevention. In: Gupta RL (ed) Recent Advances in SurgeryNumber 11. JaypeeBrothers, New Delhi, pp 225–250

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aggarwal CS, Tewari P, Mishra S, Rao A, Hadke NS, Adhikari S, Srivastava A (2012) Interrupted abdominal closure prevents burst: randomized controlled trial comparing interrupted-X and conventional continuous closures in surgical and gynecological patients. Ind J Surg 24:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hennekens CH, Buring JE (1987) Epidemiology in medicine; Chapter 4 -Measures of disease frequency and association. Pub -Little Brown and company, Boston, pp 54–98

    Google Scholar 

  6. Miettinen O (1974) Proportion of disease caused or prevented by a given exposure, trait or intervention. Am J Epidemiol 99(5):325–332

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pérez Lara FJ, Zubizarreta Jimenez R, MoyaDonoso FJ, Hernández Gonzalez JM, Prieto-PugaArjona T, Marín Moya R, Pitarch MM (2021) Novel suturing technique, based on physical principles, achieves a breaking point double that obtained by conventional techniques. World J Gastrointest Surg 13(9):1039–1049

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ahi KS, Khandekar S (2017) Prevention of burst abdomen by interrupted closure: a comparative study of conventional continuous versus interrupted-X-type versus hughes far-and-near interrupted abdominal fascial closure in surgical patients. IOSR J Dental Medic Sci 16:21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Khan AA, Khan N, Qayyum A, AbbasiSaira HJ (2018) Comparison of continuous versus interrupted X-suturing technique for abdominal wall closure in emergency midline laparotomy wound. J Postgrad Med Inst 32(4):390–394

    Google Scholar 

  10. Belim O, Gohil K (2014) Evaluation of wound dehiscence of midline laparotomy wounds on comparing continuous interlocking and interrupted X-suturing methods of closure. Int J Res Med 3(2):19–26

    Google Scholar 

  11. Roy A, Mukhopadhyay M, Rahman QM (2016) Abdominal closure with interrupted ‘X’ sutures prevent burst abdomen better when compared with continuous mass closure: a randomised trial in patients with perforative peritonitis. Hellenic J Surg 88:405–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shashikala V, Abhilash SB, Abhishek G, Fernandes PS (2018) A comparative study between continuous and x-interrupted sutures in emergency midline laparotomies. Int Surg J 5:1753–1757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kunju RD, Thakkannavar V, Shrivathsa MK, Sachin HG, Netto A, Pawar SJ, PM. (2017) A clinical study of continuous and interrupted fascial closure in emergency midline laparotomy at a tertiary care centre. Int Surg J 4:2014–2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sharma AC, Gupta AK, Singh N, Maurya AK, Singla M (2019) Comparison of continuous versus interrupted abdominal fascia closure using polydioxanone suture in laparotomy. Int Surg J 6:2832–2836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Islam B, Islam S, Roy SK, Alam NK, Rahaman T, Sarkar MH (2017) Interrupted midline fascial closure to prevent burst abdomen in emergency laparotomy: comparison between continuous and interrupted closure. TAJ 30:69–75

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tandara AA, Mustoe TA (2004) Oxygen in wound healing—more than a nutrient. World J Surg 28:294–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yip WL (2015) Influence of oxygen on wound healing. Int Wound J 12(6):620–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Seiler CM, Bruckner T, Diener MK, Papyan A, Golcher H, Seidlmayer C, Franck A, Kieser M, Büchler MW, Knaebel HP (2009) Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions: a multicenter randomized trial (INSECT: ISRCTN24023541). Ann Surg 249(4):576–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kursh ED, Klein L, Schmitt J, Kayal S, Persky L (1977) The effect of uremia on wound tensile strength and collagen formation. J Surg Res 23(1):37–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Maroz N, Simman R (2014) Wound healing in patients with impaired kidney function. J Am Coll Clin Wound Spec 5(1):2–7

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to following investigators for kindly sharing their data: Swapandeep Roy (AIIMS, New Delhi); Sujoy Negi (RJ Kar Medical College Kolkota); B.K. Jain (UCMS, Delhi); Upendra Shrivastava (UCMS Delhi); Vibhor Mahendru (RJ Kar Medical College Kolkata); Dilip Chakrabarty (RJ Kar Medical College Kolkata); Shibajyoti Ghosh (RJ Kar Medical College Kolkata); Mosin Mustaq (Government Medical College Srinagar); Shahid Anjum Awan (Government Medical College Srinagar); Farooq Ahmed (Government Medical College Srinagar).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anurag Srivastava.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Presentation: Annual Meeting of Association of Surgeons of India, Kolkota, December 2012.

Appendix 1: Suturing Technique

Appendix 1: Suturing Technique

The technique of “X”-suturing is described in detail by Srivastava et al. [2] in Indian Journal of Surgery and in the book “Recent Advances in Surgery” edited by Dr Roshan Lall Gupta Number 11 [3].

The first bite is started at 2 cm from cut edge of linea alba with needle entering at point “1” (see Fig. 1). The needle emerges at point “2”on opposite side of wound 4 cm cranially or caudally at 2 cm from edge. Two ends of suture strands are crossed and needle enters at point “3” on a diagonally opposite direction 4 cm away from previous bite and 2 cm from edge. The needle emerges at point “4” diagonal to point “3”. A “right angle” forceps is passed behind the “X” on back of linea alba and two ends of suture are fastened with two double throws alternating with two single throws. The smaller end of suture is next pulled by the “right angle” forceps deep to the linea alba passing behind the “X” like cross of suture. Four more throws are fastened (alternating single and double throws) to complete a secure central reef knot. This central knot fixes the 4 limbs of “X” and acts like a pivot for free movement of four limbs of “X”. The suture ends are held with an artery forceps and suture cut at one centimeter from the knot. The free ends of suture are insinuated between edges of linea alba to prevent any sinus formation. The final result is a “two “X” configurations”—one on surface and other on deeper aspect of linea alba, hence the name “double X suture”. The next X-suture is placed at a distance of 1 cm from the previous one. Any gap between the sutures admitting a finger is reinforced with a simple interrupted suture to prevent any Richter’s hernia of bowel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mishra, P.R., Kumar, S., Mishra, S. et al. Interrupted X-Suture Prevents Burst Abdomen: Analysis of 5 Randomised Controlled Trials from India. Indian J Surg 85, 233–240 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-022-03411-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-022-03411-6

Keywords

Navigation