ArticleCureus2024
Hughes Abdomen Closure Technique Versus Continuous Closure in Emergency Midline Laparotomy: A Randomized Controlled Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Abdominal wound dehiscence, a serious postoperative issue, remains a significant concern for surgeons due to its potential to increase patient mortality and morbidity. Disruption can occur at any point after surgery, sparking debate over the optimal closure method for midline vertical abdominal wounds. Therefore, it's crucial to determine the safest approach. Our randomized clinical trial is planned to compare the risk of a burst abdomen associated with the Hughes abdominal closure technique to that of continuous abdominal closure. Methods All patients >18 years scheduled for emergency midline laparotomy were randomly assigned into two groups using computer-generated random numbers: Group A underwent Hughes repair (12 patients) and Group B underwent continuous closure (17 patients). Preoperative data, including patient demographics, and postoperative outcomes, such as time for rectus closure, wound dehiscence, surgical site infection (SSI), and length of hospital stay, were documented for analysis. Results The study found that the average patient age was 37.89 years, with more males than females. Both groups had an equal distribution of co-morbidities (p = 0.468), but none of these factors were statistically significant. Burst abdomen occurred in 25% of group A and 41.1% of group B (p = 0.367, not significant). Incisional hernia was absent in both groups. Surgical site infection (p = 0.119) and respiratory complications (p = 0.16) were not statistically significant between groups. However, in group A, the regressive analysis showed significant associations between burst abdomen, surgical site infection (p = 0.018), and respiratory complications (p = 0.007), while in group B, these associations were not significant (p = 0.252 for SSI and p = 0.906 for respiratory complications). Conclusion The occurrence of burst abdomen and closure time differences between continuous and Hughes techniques were not significant. The Hughes technique was quicker to learn (32 vs. 22 minutes). Burst abdomen was more common in continuous closure (group A: 25% vs. group B: 41%), favoring the Hughes technique. Factors like age, gender, and others didn't significantly impact the burst abdomen in either group.
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.