Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33902549›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2021

Interrupted sutures prevent recurrent abdominal fascial dehiscence: a comparative retrospective single center cohort analysis of risk factors of burst abdomen and its recurrence as well as surgical repair techniques.

Matthias Mehdorn, Linda Groos, Woubet Kassahun, Boris Jansen-Winkeln, Ines Gockel, Yusef Moulla

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Abdominal fascia dehiscence: is there a connection to a special microbial spectrum?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthias Mehdorn *Department of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. Matthias.mehdorn@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0047-368X
Linda Groos *Department of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Woubet KassahunDepartment of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Boris Jansen-WinkelnDepartment of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Ines Gockel *Department of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Yusef Moulla *Department of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
University Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBurst abdomen (BA) is a severe complication after abdominal surgery, which often requires urgent repair. However, evidence on surgical techniques to prevent burst abdomen recurrence (BAR) is scarce.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with BA comparing them to patients with superficial surgical site infections from the years 2015 to 2018. The data was retrieved from the institutional wound register. We analyzed risk factors for BA occurrence as well as its recurrence after BA repair and surgical closure techniques that would best prevent BAR.

resultsWe included 504 patients in the analysis, 111 of those suffered from BA. We found intestinal resection (OR 172.510; 22.195-1340.796, p < 0.001), liver cirrhosis (OR 4.788; 2.034-11.269, p < 0.001) and emergency surgery (OR 1.658; 1.050-2.617; p = 0.03) as well as postoperative delirium (OR 5.058; 1.349-18.965, p = 0.016) as the main predictor for developing BA. The main reason for BA was superficial surgical site infection (40.7%). 110 patients received operative revision of the abdominal fascial dehiscence and 108 were eligible for BAR analysis with 14 cases of BAR. Again, post-operative delirium was the patient-related predictor for BAR (OR 13.73; 95% CI 1.812-104-023, p = 0.011). The surgical technique of using interrupted sutures opposed to continuous sutures showed a preventive effect on BAR (OR 0.143, 95% CI 0.026-0,784, p = 0.025). The implantation of an absorbable IPOM mesh did not reduce BAR, but it did reduce the necessity of BAR revision significantly.

conclusionThe use of interrupted sutures together with the implantation of an intraabdominal mesh in burst abdomen repair helps to reduce BAR and the need for additional revision surgeries.

Indexed as

Surgical Wound DehiscenceSuturesAbdomenCohort StudiesHumansRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSuture TechniquesAbdominal fascial dehiscenceBurst abdomenBurst abdomen recurrenceInterrupted suturesIPOM augmentation

Identifiers

PMID33902549
PMCPMC8074409
OpenAlexW3159525339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.