Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19442311›Full record

Trial reportBMC surgery2009

Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery - Is there any consensus?

Nuh N Rahbari, Phillip Knebel, Markus K Diener, Christoph Seidlmayer, Karsten Ridwelski, Hartmut Stöltzing, Christoph M Seiler

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC surgery, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03527433 (A Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing Wound COmplications in Elective Midline Laparotomies After FAscia Closure Using Two Different Techniques of Running Sutures), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03527433 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing Wound COmplications in Elective Midline Laparotomies After FAscia Closure Using Two Different Techniques of Running Sutures: COFACTOR-trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAmerican University of Beirut Medical CenterRan2019 to 2025Enrolled274ConditionsWound ComplicationArmsNew closure technique
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2015
    Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. [Which abdominal incisions predispose for incisional hernias?].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2010
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nuh N RahbariStudy Centre of the German Surgical Society, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. nuh.rahbari@med.uni-heidelberg.de
Phillip Knebel
Markus K Diener
Christoph Seidlmayer
Karsten Ridwelski
Hartmut Stöltzing
Christoph M Seiler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDevelopment of incisional hernia after open abdominal surgery remains a major cause of post-operative morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the current practice of surgeons in terms of access to and closure of the abdominal cavity in elective open surgery.

methodsTwelve surgical departments of the INSECT-Trial group documented the following variables for 50 consecutive patients undergoing abdominal surgery: fascial closure techniques, applied suture materials, application of subcutaneous sutures, subcutaneous drains, methods for skin closure. Descriptive analysis was performed and consensus of treatment variables was categorized into four levels: Strong consensus >95%, consensus 75-95%, overall agreement 50-75%, no consensus <50%.

results157 out of 599 patients were eligible for analysis (85 (54%) midline, 54 (35%) transverse incisions). After midline incisions the fascia was closed continuously in 55 patients (65%), using slowly absorbable (n = 47, 55%), braided (n = 32, 38%) sutures with a strength of 1 (n = 48, 57%). In the transverse setting the fascia was closed continuously in 39 patients (72%) with slowly absorbable (n = 22, 41%) braided sutures (n = 27, 50%) with a strength of 1 (n = 30, 56%).

conclusionIn the present evaluation midline incision was the most frequently applied access in elective open abdominal surgery. None of the treatments for abdominal wall closure (except skin closure in the midline group) is performed on a consensus level.

Indexed as

ConsensusAbdominal WallCross-Sectional StudiesElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGermanyHernia, AbdominalHumansIncidenceLaparotomyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSuture Techniques

Identifiers

PMID19442311
PMCPMC2687428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.