Skip to main content
Log in

One hundred years of abdominal wound dehiscence and nothing has changed

  • Short Reports
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The burst abdomen has been a constantly present complication in the last century. A collective review of the literature showed that predisposing, contributing, and causative factors have all been recognized early in the last century. The incidence of abdominal wound dehiscence has not changed appreciably. In a retrospective clinical study the incidence of wound disruption after 2030 median laparotomies was 1.3%. Inadequate knot and suture technique were causative, and layered closure needed revision. In an experimental study using rats, the healing of a midline defect of the abdominal wall was strengthened only by the addition of retention sutures, not by the use of supporting devices. In a prospective clinical study the abdominal wound was closed in one layer with large bites (> 1 cm) and with small steps (< 1 cm) of continuous PDS. Fifteen wound disruptions occurred (0.6%) after closure of 2488 median laparotomies. Scrutiny of the disrupted wounds revealed non-compliance with the suture protocol in the vast majority of cases. The surgeon is a prognostic factor in abdominal wound closure. Nothing has changed in 100 years.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abel (1898) Über Bauchnaht und Bauchnarbenbrüche. Arch Gyn 56

  • van Geldere D (1986) De gebarsten buik (The burst abdomen). Academic Thesis. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson NCF, Malthaner RA, Ostbye T (2000) The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure. Ann Surg 231: 436–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins TPN (1976) The burst abdominal wound: a mechanical approach. Br J Surg 63: 873–876

    Google Scholar 

  • Madelung (1905) Über den postoperativen Vorfall von Baucheingeweiden. Verb Dtsch Ges Chir

  • Maingot R (1957) Management of abdominal operations. 2nd ed. London, Lewis

    Google Scholar 

  • Niggebrugge AHP, Trimbos JB, Hermans J, Steup WH, van de Velde CJH (1999) Influence of abdominal wound closure technique on complications after surgery. Lancet 353: 1563–1567

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris JD (1939) A review of wound healing and the mechanics of dehiscence. Surgery 5: 775–786

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiland DE, Bay C, Del Sordi S (1998) Choosing the best abdominal closure by meta-analysis. Am J Surg 176: 666–670

    Google Scholar 

  • Wissing J, van Vroonhoven Th JMV, Eeftinck Schattenkerk M, Veen HF, Ponsen RJG, Jeekel J (1987) Fascia closure after midline laparotomy: results of a randomized trial. Br J Surg 74: 738–741

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. van Geldere.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Geldere, D. One hundred years of abdominal wound dehiscence and nothing has changed. Hernia 4, 302–304 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01201090

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01201090

Key words

Navigation