SS  Vol.4 No.6 , June 2013
New-Fangled Slowly-Absorbable versus Non-Absorbable Sutures for Abdominal Fascial Closure. Have the Goals towards an Advantageous Suture Been Met?
Abstract: Background-Aim: The technique of abdominal closure along with the material to be used is constantly evolving. The aim of the present study is to evaluate differences in midline laparotomy closure with a standard closure technique and new-fangled slow-absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures. Material and Methods: A prospective, comparative study of patients undergoing laparotomy closure with either STARDIOX (Polydioxanone) or STARLENE (Polypropylene) sutures during a 9 month period was performed. Patients were evaluated and compared in terms of surgical site infection, incisional hernia, burst abdomen, and suture sinus formation. Results: A total of 284 patients were included [141 in the STARDIOX (Polydioxanone) group and 143 in the STARLENE (Polypropylene) group]. Sinus formation was not noticed and no palpable knots were reported in both groups. Moreover burst abdomen was never encountered. Incisional hernia rates were similar for both suture materials: n = 6 (4.3%) for the STARDIOX (Polydioxanone) group and n = 5 (3.5%) for the STARLENE (Polypropylene) group. There was not statistically significant relationship between the type of suture that was used and wound infection: n = 5 (3.5%) in the STARDIOX (Polydioxanone) group and n = 6 (4.2%) in the STARLENE (Polypropylene) group. Complications did not occur in 96.1% of all patients. Conclusions: Our study suggests that there are no significant differences between these two new-fangled sutures. It seems that progress of suture materials has led to a step towards the goals of a beneficial suture and from then on complications of surgical wound closure should be merely a matter of operative technique.
Cite this paper: G. Anthimidis, M. Gregoriou, T. Stavrakis, K. Vasiliadou, I. Lyras, K. Ioannidis and G. Basdanis, "New-Fangled Slowly-Absorbable versus Non-Absorbable Sutures for Abdominal Fascial Closure. Have the Goals towards an Advantageous Suture Been Met?," Surgical Science, Vol. 4 No. 6, 2013, pp. 298-301. doi: 10.4236/ss.2013.46058.

[1]   J. Wissing, T. J. van Vroonhoven, M. E. Schattenkerk, et al., “Fascia Closure after Midline Laparotomy: Results of a Randomized Trial,” British Journal of Surgery, Vol. 74, No. 8, 1987, pp. 738-741. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800740831

[2]   M. L. Corman, M. C. Veidenheimer and J. A. Coller, “Controlled Clinical Trial of Three Suture Materials for Abdominal Wall Closure after Bowl Operations,” The American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 141, No. 4, 1981, pp. 510-513. doi:10.1016/0002-9610(81)90150-1

[3]   B. M. Burt, A. Tavakkolizadeh and S. J. Ferzoco, “Incisions, Closures, and Management of the Abdominal Wound,” In: M. J. Zinner and S. W. Ashley, Eds., Maingot’s Abdominal Operations, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, 2007, p. 4.

[4]   M. S. Sajid, U. Parampalli, M. K. Baig and M. R. McFall “A Systematic Review on the Effectiveness of SlowlyAbsorbable versus Non-Absorbable Sutures for Abdominal Fascial Closure Following Laparotomy,” International Journal of Surgery, Vol. 9, No. 8, 2011, pp. 615-625. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.09.006

[5]   H. Ellis, H. Gajraj and C. D. George, “Incisional Hernias: When Do They Occur?” British Journal of Surgery, Vol. 70, No. 5, 1983, pp. 290-291. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800700514