Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2020
Randomised-controlled feasibility trial on abdominal wall closure techniques in patients undergoing relaparotomy (ReLap study; DRKS00013001).
Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of the SUture BIte TEchnique on clinical outcomes after midline laparotomy closure: SUBITE-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
- 5-year clinical outcome of the ESTOIH trial comparing the short-bite versus large-bite technique for elective midline abdominal closure.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Trial
- Prevalence of relaparotomy and associated factors among patients undergone laparotomy in selected public hospitals of East Wollega under Oromia region of Ethiopia. A cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Suture Techniques and Materials for Fascial Closure of Abdominal Wall Incisions: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- Risk factors for wound complications after associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) compared to repeated liver resection - a propensity score matching analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- The 6:1 short stitch SL-WL-ratio: short term closure results of transverse and midline incisions in elective and emergency operations.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- Standard of Care and Outcomes of Primary Laparotomy Versus Laparotomy in Patients with Prior Open Abdominal Surgery (ReLap Study; DRKS00013001).Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients undergoing relaparotomy are generally underrepresented in clinical trials, despite how common the procedure is in clinical practice. Specifically, techniques for re-do abdominal wall closure have never been evaluated in a randomised-controlled trial. The aim of this trial was to identify the optimal abdominal wall closure technique in patients undergoing relaparotomy.
methodsIn this monocentric, randomised feasibility trial, patients scheduled for elective relaparotomy were randomised to abdominal wall closure with either the small stitches technique, using Monomax® 2-0, or the large stitches technique, using PDS II® 1 loop. Patients' postoperative courses were followed for 1 year after the index operation. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were compared at a level of significance of 5% between the two techniques.
resultsA total of 100 out of 131 patients (76.3%) were evenly randomised to the small stitches and large stitches groups. The time for abdominal wall closure did not differ between the two techniques (small stitches 27.5 ± 9.5 min versus large stitches 25.3 ± 12.4 min; p = 0.334). The overall comprehensive complication index was 14.4 ± 15.5 in the small stitches group and 19.9 ± 23.4 in the large stitches group (p = 0.168). Specifically, rates of surgical site infection (small stitches 30.0% versus large stitches 36.0%; p = 0.524) and burst abdomen (small stitches 4.0% versus large stitches 0.0%; p = 0.495) did not differ. After 1 year, incisional hernia rate was 7.5% in the small stitches group and 10.0% in the large stitches group (p > 0.999). DISCUSSION: Both abdominal wall closure techniques investigated in this trial were feasible in relaparotomy patients. This exploratory trial revealed no noticeable difference in the effectiveness or safety of the small stitches technique with Monomax® 2-0 versus the large stitches technique with PDS II® 1 loop. Therefore, surgeons should stay with their preferred suture technique in relaparotomy patients.
trial registrationDeutsches Register Klinischer Studien ( www.germanctr.de ): DRKS00013001.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.