The Comparison of Interrupted Modified Smead-Jones Versus Conventional Continuous Suturing Technique for Closure of Rectus Sheath in Patients Undergoing Laparotomy for Hollow Viscus Perforation.

An emergency laparotomy is a common surgical procedure, performed for a wide variety of intra-abdominal pathologies, which has a significant associated morbidity and mortality. Each year, approximately 30,000 emergency laparotomies are performed in the UK [1]. A major surgical complication after emergency midline laparotomy is abdominal fascial dehiscence. Dehiscence is associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates up to 30%, prolonged hospital stay, and a long-term risk of developing incisional hernia [1].

Hollow viscus perforation is one of the most common cause of peritonitis necessitating emergency surgical intervention. The diagnosis is mainly based on clinical grounds. Plain abdominal X-rays (erect) may reveal dilated and edematous intestines with pneumoperitoneum. Local findings include abdominal tenderness, guarding or rigidity, distension, diminished bowel sounds and systemic findings include fever, chills or rigor, tachycardia, sweating, tachypnea, restlessness, dehydration, oliguria, disorientation and ultimately shock. Exposure of the normally sterile peritoneal cavity to intraluminal contents causes secondary bacterial peritonitis. The peritoneal contamination due to bowel perforation is one of the leading risk factor for occurrence of burst abdomen [2].

Laparotomy wound dehiscence (LWD) is a term used to describe separation of the layers of a laparotomy wound before complete healing has taken place. Other terms used interchangeably are acute laparotomy wound failure and burst abdomen. Frequency of laparotomy wound dehiscence in the relevant literature is cited in the range of 0.2% to 10%[3,4]. The occurrence of fascial dehiscence represents a risk factor for increased mortality rates of up to 25%[5] [11] [12] Acute wound failure may be occult or overt, partial or complete. Overt wound failure follows early removal of sutures leading to evisceration. Occult dehiscence occurs with disruption of musculo-aponeurotic layer beneath intact skin sutures. Wound dehiscence has been noted to occur when a wound fails to gain sufficient strength to withstand stresses placed upon it. The separation may occur when overwhelming forces break sutures, when absorbable sutures dissolve too quickly or when tight sutures cut through tissues [6].

Conventional continuous closure technique has been shown to compromise blood supply and thereby poor wound holding, during initial phases of wound dehiscence. Surgeons have been continuously striving to overcome postoperative complications associated with laparotomy wound closure using newer techniques and newer suture materials. Several reviews have studied the optimal suture repair for closing the abdominal fascia, but no consensus has been reached. Hence, it is imperative for us to ascertain better method of closing the abdomen. While the choice may not be so important in elective patients who are nutritionally adequate, do not have any risk factor for dehiscence and are well prepared for surgery, however it may prove crucial in emergency patients who often have multiple risk factors for developing dehiscence and the strangulation of the sheath is the proverbial last straw in precipitating wound failure Majority of the studies suggest that, the most effective method of midline abdominal fascial closure in the elective setting is mass closure incorporating all layers of abdominal wall except skin in continuous technique with No. 1 or 2 delayed absorbable monofilament suture material with suture length to wound length ratio 4:14-7 .Many randomized controlled trials showed that odds of the burst abdomen are reduced with the interrupted method of closure as compared to continuous.

A study done by AGHARA CB et al8 to compare incidence of burst abdomen between modified smead-jones interrupted suture technique (2%) versus conventional continuous closure (14%) in patient undergoing hollow visus perforation. However the previous done studies have not taken into account a specific population with specific risk factor to compare these two suturing techniques so the aim of present study is to compare the incidence of burst abdomen in the patient undergoing midline abdominal wall closure with modified smead jones interrupted suture9 techniques (Experimental group) and conventional continuous suturing technique10 (Reference Group) in patient undergoing emergency laparotomy for hollow viscus perforation.