Trial reportWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2023
Continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy: CONTINT: a randomized controlled trial [NCT00544583].
Trial report in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interrupted versus continuous fascial closure after emergency midline laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2026Pooled it
- Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Prophylactic Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Reduces Superficial Surgical Site Infection Risk of Emergency Surgery Patients: Results of a Multicenter Randomised Prospective Clinical Trial.International wound journal · 2025Trial
- Article
- Article
- Continuous fascial closure using absorbable barbed sutures lowers the risk of incisional hernia after minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a consecutive single-surgeon retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Early and late outcomes of component separation with transversus abdominis release with mesh augmentation versus primary suturing for the management of abdominal dehiscence: a retrospective comparative study.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 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
- Abdominal Wall Reconstruction in Abdominal Wall Endometriosis: A Case Report and Literature Review.Archives of plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Complete Abdominal Evisceration After Open Hysterectomy: A Case Report and Evidence-Based Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of Running Versus Interrupted Sutures for Fascial Closure in Ileostomy Takedown.Current health sciences journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-level evidence regarding the technique of abdominal wall closure for patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy is sparse. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two commonly applied abdominal wall closure strategies after primary emergency midline laparotomy. METHODS/
designCONTINT was a multi-center pragmatic open-label exploratory randomized controlled parallel trial. Two different abdominal wall closure strategies in patients undergoing primary midline laparotomy for an emergency surgical intervention with a suspected septic focus in the abdominal cavity were compared: the continuous, all-layer suture and the interrupted suture technique. The primary composite endpoint was burst abdomen within 30 days after surgery or incisional hernia within 12 months. As reliable data on this composite primary endpoint were not available for patients undergoing emergency surgery, it was planned to initially recruit 80 patients and conduct an interim analysis after these had completed the 12 months follow-up.
resultsFrom August 31, 2009, to June 28, 2012, 124 patients were randomized of whom 119 underwent surgery and were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principal. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between the continuous suture (C: 27.1%) and the interrupted suture group (I: 30.0%). None of the individual components of the primary endpoint (reoperation due to burst abdomen after 30 days (C: 13.5%, I: 15.1%) and reoperation due to incisional hernia (C: 3.0%, I:11.1%)) differed between groups. Time needed for fascial closure was longer in the interrupted suture group (C: 12.8 ± 4.5 min, I: 17.4 ± 6.1 min). BMI was associated with burst abdomen during the first 30 days with an OR of 1.17 (95% CI 1.04-1.32).
conclusionThis RCT showed no difference between continuous suture with slowly absorbable suture versus interrupted rapidly absorbable sutures after primary emergency midline laparotomy in rates of postoperative burst abdomen and incisional hernia after one year. However, the trial was stopped after the interim analysis due to futility as there was no chance to show superiority of one suture technique.
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.