Advertisement

Long-Versus Short-Term Absorbable Sutures

  • P. J. Osther
Conference paper

Abstract

The cause of wound complications after laparotomy is multifactorial, conditioned by local and systemic and by pre-, peri-, and postoperative factors [1]. Several factors such as advanced age, pulmonary disease, morbid obesity, malignancy, and intra-abdominal infection are associated with impaired wound healing and predispose patients to serious wound complications such as fascial disruption (wound dehiscence), wound infection, and incisional herniation [1–4]. In patients who are at high risk for wound complications, the role of the surgical technique and suture material are especially important [3, 4].

Keywords

Incisional Hernia Wound Complication Suture Material Absorbable Suture Wound Dehiscence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pennickx FM, Poelmans SV, Kerremans RP, Beckers JP Abdominal wound dehiscence in gastrointestinal surgery. Ann Surg 1979; 189: 345–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wadström J, Gerdin B. Closure of the abdominal wall; how and why? Clinical review. Acta Chir Scand 1990; 156:75–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Israelsson LA. Wound complications in midline laparotomy incisions: the importance of the sutures technique. Thesis. Malmö, Sweden 1995, pp 1–89.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haley RW, Culver DH, Morgan MW, White JW, Emori TG, Hooton TM. Identifying patients at high risk for wound infection. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121:206–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bucknall TE, Ellis H. Abdominal wound closure — a comparison of monofilament nylon and plyglycolic acid. Surgery 1981; 89:672–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wissing J, van Vroonhoven TJMV, Schattenkerk ME, Veen HF, Ponsen RJG, Jeekel J. Fascia closure after midline laparotomy: results of a randomized trial. Br J Surg 1987; 74:738–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Israelsson LA, Johnsson T. Closure of midline laparotomy incisions with polydioxanone and nylon: the importance of suture technique. Br J Surg 1994; 81:1606–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larsen PN, Nielsen K, Schultz A, Mejdahl S, Larsen T, Moesgaard F. Closure of the abdominal fascia after clean and clean-contaminated laparotomy. Acta Chir Scand 1989; 155:461–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corman ML, Veidenheimer MC, Coller JA. Controlled clinical trial of three suture materials for abdominal wall closure after bowel operations. Am J Surg 1981; 141: 510–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson CD, Bernhardt LW, Bentley PG. Incisional hernia after mass closure of abdominal incisions with Dexon and Prolene. Br J Surg 1982; 69: 55(Letter).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ABPI Data Sheet Compendium. London: Datapharm 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hewin DF. Randomized comparison of polyglycolic acid and polyglyconate sutures for abdominal fascial closure after laparotomy in patients with suspected impaired wound healing. Br J Surg 1995; 82:1698 (letter).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foresman PA, Edlich RF, Rodeheaver GT. The effect of new monofilament absorbable sutures on the healing of musculoaponeurotic incisions, gastrotomies, and colonic anastomoses. Arch Surg 1989; 124: 708–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Varma S, Ferguson HL, Breen H, Lumb WV. Comparison of seven suture materials in infected wounds — an experimental study. J Surg Res 1974; 17:165–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chu CC, Williams DF. Effects of physical configuration and chemical structure of suture materials on bacterial adhesion. A possible link to wound infection. Am J Surg 1984; 147:197–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Savolainen H, Ristkari S, Mokka R. Early laparotomy wound dehiscence: a randomized comparison of three suture materials and two methods of fascial closure. Annals Chirurgiae Gynaecologiae 1988; 77:111–3.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deitel M, Alhindawi R, Yamen M, To TB, Burul CJ. Dexon Plus versus Maxon fascial closure in morbid obesity: a prospective randomized comparison. Can J Surg 1990; 33:302–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Osther PJ, Gjode P, Mortensen BB, Mortensen PB, Bartholin J, Gottrup F. Randomized comparison of polyglycolic acid and polyglyconate sutures for abdominal fascial closure after laparotomy in patients with suspected impaired wound healing. Br J Surg 1995; 82:1080–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sahlin S, Ahlberg J, Granström L, Ljungström KG. Monofilament versus multifilament absorbable sutures for abdominal closure. Br J Surg 1993; 80:322–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jenkins TPN. The burst abdominal wound: a mechanical approach. Br J Surg 1976; 63:873–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Katz S, Izhar M, Direlman D. Bacterial adherence to surgical sutures. Ann Surg 1981; 106:573–7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Österberg B. Influence of capillary multifilament sutures on the antibacterial action of inflammatory cells in infected wounds. Acta Chir Scand 1983; 149:751–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    MacLean LD. Significance of immunoreactivity in trauma. Acta Chir Scand 1985; Suppl 522: 151–70.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. Osther

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations