Randomised-controlled feasibility trial on abdominal wall closure techniques in patients undergoing relaparotomy (ReLap study; DRKS00013001)

• Published in: Langenbeck's archives of surgery Vol. 405; no. 4; pp. 427 - 434
• Main Authors: Probst, Pascal, Tran, Dinh Thien-An, Hüttner, Felix J., Harnoss, Julian C., Heger, Patrick, Ritter, Alina S., Doerr-Harim, Colette, Mihaljevic, André L., Knebel, Phillip, Schneider, Martin, Büchler, Markus W., Diener, Markus K.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01-06-2020
• Subjects: Abdominal Surgery; Cardiac Surgery; Controlled Clinical Trials; General Surgery; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Thoracic Surgery; Traumatic Surgery; Vascular Surgery; Abdominal surgery; Abdominal wall; Relaparotomy; Fascial closure
• ISSN: 1435-2443; 1435-2451
• DOI: 10.1007/s00423-020-01903-1

Background
Patients 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.
Methods
In 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.
Results
A 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 registration
Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (
www.germanctr.de
): DRKS00013001