JENKIN’S VERSUS ISRAELSSON’S TECHNIQUE FOR ABDOMINAL CLOSURE AFTER LAPAROTOMY AND IT’S OUTCOME, A RANDOMISED CONTROL TRIAL.
JENKIN’S VERSUS ISRAELSSON’S TECHNIQUE FOR ABDOMINAL CLOSURE AFTER LAPAROTOMY
Background: Midline incisions allow rapid and comprehensive access to the abdominal cavity. Secure wound closure is essential for an uncomplicated and expedient recovery after laparotomy. Method: A Randomised control trial was conducted on patients admitted in the department of surgery at a tertiary care centre from 1st November 2020 to 31st October 2021. Patients were divided into two groups by randomisation using computer generated randomisation chart. In one group midline laparotomy was closed by Jenkin’s technique (Group 1) in other group by Israelsson’s techniques(Group 2) and outcomes related to closure technique were compared. Aim: To study the results of two techniques in terms of postoperative complications. Results: A total of 100 patients were enrolled in this study with age varied from 18 to 85 years. Male: female ratio was 4.5:1. The mean BMI was 21.95. Of those who were closed by Group 1, 28% developed postoperative wound infections compared to 16% in Group 2. Group 1 had a wound dehiscence rate of 18%, while Group 2 had 6%. Group 1 recorded an incidence of 6% of burst abdomen compared to the 2% in Group 2. In Group 1, there was a 16% incidence of incisional hernia while there was a 6% incidence in Group 2. In Group 1, only 4% of patients complained of chronic wound pain compared to the 6% in Group 2. Conclusion: Jenkin’s abdominal closure technique should be employed in closing large midline incisions in procedures requiring less operative time. This technique involves less operative. Israelsson’s technique leads to lesser wound infections, wound dehiscence, burst abdomen and incisional hernia as compared to Jenkin’s technique. Israelsson’s technique should be used in patients who can tolerate an added amount of operative time, extra cost, have small midline incisions and with associated pulmonary diseases.
2. Ceydeli A, Rucinski J, Wise L. Finding the best abdominal closure: an evidence-based review of the literature. Curr Surg. 2005;62(2):220-5.
3. Israelsson LA and Millbourn D. Closing midline abdominal incisions. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2012;397(8):1201-7.
4. Jenkins TP. The burst abdominal wound: a mechanical approach. Br J Surg. 1976;63(11):873-6.
5. Leaper DJ, Pollock AV, Evans M. Abdominal wound closure: a trial of nylon, polyglycolic acid and steel sutures. Br J Surg. 1977;64(8):603-6.
6. Högstrom H, Haglund U, Zederfeldt B. Suture technique and early breaking strength of intestinal anastomoses and laparotomy wounds. Acta Chir Scand. 1985;151(5):441-3.
7. Weiland DE, Bay RC, Del Sordi S. Choosing the best abdominal closure by meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 1998;176(6):666-70.
8. Srivastava A, Roy S, Sahay KB et al. Prevention of burst abdominal wound by a new technique: A randomized trial comparing continuous versus interrupted X-suture. Indian Journal of Surgery. 2004;66(1):19-27
9. Gurjar V, Halvadia BM, Bharaney RP et al. Study of two techniques for midline laparotomy fascial wound closure. Indian J Surg. 2014;76(2):91-4.
10. Bansiwal R, Mittal T, Sharma R et al. Comparative study of abdominal wound dehiscence in continuous versus interrupted fascial closure after emergency midline laparotomy. International Surgery Journal. 2019;6(3):886-91.
11. Madsen G, Fischer L, Wara P. Burst abdomen-clinical features and factors influencing mortality. Dan Med Bull. 1992 Apr;39(2):183-5.
12. Millbourn D, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA. Effect of stitch length on wound complications after closure of midline incisions: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg. 2009;144(11):1056-9.
13. Elkheir IS and Idris SA. Evaluation of abdominal wall closure techniques in emergency laparotomies at a peripheral hospital. Sch J App Med Sci. 2014;2(5):1591-5.
14. Krukowski ZH, Cusick EL, Engeset J et al. Polydioxanone or polypropylene for closure of midline abdominal incisions: a prospective comparative clinical trial. Br J Surg. 1987;74(9):828-30.
15. Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K et al. Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2010;251(5):843-56.
16. Makela JT, Kiviniemi H, Juvonen T et al. Factors influencing wound dehiscence after midline laparotomy. Am J Surg. 1995;170(4):387-90.
17. Bucknall TE, Cox PJ, Ellis H. Burst abdomen and incisional hernia: a prospective study of 1129 major laparotomies. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1982;284(6320):931-3.
18. Cameron AE, Parker CJ, Field ES et al. A randomised comparison of polydioxanone (PDS) and polypropylene (Prolene) for abdominal wound closure. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1987;69(3):113-5.
19. Agrawal CS, Tiwari P, Mishra S et al. Interrupted abdominal closure prevents burst: randomized controlled trial comparing interrupted-x and conventional continuous closures in surgical and gynecological patients. Indian Journal of Surgery. 2014;76(4):270-6.
20. Pollock AV, Greenall MJ, Evans M. Single-layer mass closure of major laparotomies by continuous suturing. J R Soc Med. 1979;72(12):889-93.
21. Wissing J, Van Vroonhoven TJ, Schattenkerk ME, Veen HF, Ponsen RJ, Jeekel J. Fascia closure after midline laparotomy: results of a randomized trial. British journal of surgery. 1987 Aug;74(8):738-41.
22. McNeil PM and Sugerman HJ. Continuous absorbable vs interrupted nonabsorbable fascial closure. A prospective, randomized comparison. Arch Surg. 1986;121(7):821-3.
23. Millbourn D, Wimo A, Israelsson LA. Cost analysis of the use of small stitches when closing midline abdominal incisions. Hernia. 2014;18(6):775-80.