Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27392763›Full record

ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2016

[Current standards of abdominal wall closure techniques : Conventional suture techniques].

P Heger, F Pianka, M K Diener, A L Mihaljevic

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

P HegerKlinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
F PiankaKlinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
M K DienerKlinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. markus.diener@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
A L MihaljevicKlinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
University Hospital Heidelberg · DEGerman Society of Surgery · DEHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe most frequent complications following midline abdominal laparotomy include incisional hernias, which develop in 10-15 % of patients and surgical site infections in 15-25 % of cases; however, the risk of these complications can be reduced by the surgical technique and the use of special suture materials. In 2010, the INLINE meta-analysis performed by the Study Centre of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC) revealed that a continuous suture technique using slowly absorbable suture material resulted in the lowest risk of developing postoperative incisional hernia after elective midline laparotomy.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature search to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have been published since 2010 concerning conventional abdominal wall closure in order to update the 2010 INLINE meta-analysis and summarize current evidence. MATERIAL AND

methodsOn 28 January 2016, a systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). All RCTs dealing with abdominal wall closure after midline laparotomy were identified and included for further analysis.

resultsSince 2010 a total of 9 RCTs comparing different techniques of abdominal wall closure have been published. Three monocentric RCTs comparing different suture materials, showed no significant differences to the INLINE meta-analysis regarding incisional hernia development; therefore, slowly absorbable sutures using a continuous suture technique are still recommended for abdominal wall closure in elective cases. Furthermore, six RCTs were identified which investigated antimicrobial suture materials but failed to show an overall advantage for Triclosan-coated suture material with respect to surgical site infections.

conclusionCurrent evidence shows that slowly absorbable monofilament suture material using a continuous suture technique provides the best results with regard to incisional hernia rates after elective midline laparotomy. Triclosan-coated sutures cannot be recommended as a standard suture material as they failed to reduce surgical site infections. For emergency laparotomies no evidence exists to recommend a specific kind of suture technique or a special suture material.

Indexed as

Abdominal Wound Closure TechniquesHumansIncisional HerniaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Wound InfectionSuturesSuture TechniquesAbdomenIncisional herniaLaparotomyRandomized controlled trialsSurgical site infections

Identifiers

PMID27392763
OpenAlexW2467842424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.