Dataset Information

Protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing wound COmplications in elective midline laparotomies after FAscia Closure using two different Techniques Of Running sutures: COFACTOR trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Wound complications following midline laparotomies are common and the main source of postoperative morbidity including superficial or deep wound infection, skin dehiscence, fascia dehiscence, and incisional hernia. Abdominal closure complications are strongly associated with suture technique and material, in addition to other factors related to the patient and type of surgery performed. The traditional technique is to place the fascia sutures 1 cm apart and at least 1 cm away from the fascia edge. A Swedish study described a new technique of placing the sutures 5 mm apart and 5 mm away from the fascia edge, resulting in lower rates of abdominal wound complications. This study has a number of limitations. There is a need for improved quality evidence to convince the surgical community to change the closure technique of abdominal wounds aiming to reduce morbidity, which is exemplified in incisional hernias and other various postop complications.

Methods

This is a 1:1 randomized, controlled, patient- and assessor-blinded, parallel design, superiority trial, with a primary endpoint of incisional hernia at 1 year. The study will be conducted at AUBMC over a 3-year period. Patients planned for a non-emergent midline laparotomy for general surgery or vascular procedure will be randomized to either fascia closure technique. In order to detect a drop of 12% in the incidence of incisional hernia, with 80% power and an alpha of 0.05, we will need to recruit 114 patients per arm. After adjusting for loss to follow-up, target recruitment is 274 subjects. We will compare both arms for the primary, secondary, and exploratory outcomes, using chi-square or t test as appropriate. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression will be done.

Discussion

This trial will assess postop complications following abdominal midline wound closures via two different suturing techniques. This trial will generate evidence-based conclusions that will allow surgeons to assess the role of a new abdominal closure technique in decreasing short- and long-term postoperative complications, for a commonly performed procedure.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03527433 . Registered on 17 May 2018 before starting participant enrollment.

SUBMITTER: El Charif MH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7330541 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough applying adhesive strips to a wound closure has been shown to have outcomes equivalent to those with cuticular suturing, it is unknown whether adhesive strips provide additional benefit compared with dermal suturing alone.ObjectiveTo determine whether the addition of adhesive strips to a wound closed with buried interrupted subcuticular sutures improves outcomes following wound closure.Design, setting, and participantsA prospective, randomized split-wound intervention was conducted between November 14, 2013, and May 16, 2014, in patients who underwent cutaneous surgical procedures at the University of California, Davis, outpatient dermatology clinic. Fifty-seven patients 18 years or older with postoperative defects of at least 3 cm, resulting from either Mohs micrographic surgical procedures or surgical excision, were screened for participation. Nine patients were excluded and 48 were enrolled.InterventionsHalf of each wound was randomized to receive buried interrupted subcuticular sutures and overlying adhesive strips and the other half received buried interrupted subcuticular sutures only.Main outcomes and measuresAt 3 months' follow-up, each patient and 2 blinded observers evaluated the wound using the Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale.ResultsThe total mean (SD) Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale score for observers for the side that received a combination of adhesive strips and buried interrupted subcuticular suturing (12.3 [4.8]) and the side that received sutures only (12.9 [6.3]) did not differ significantly at 3 months (P = .32). There was no significant difference in the total patient assessment scale score between the combination closure (14.0 [7.6]) and sutures only (14.7 [7.6]) sides at 3 months (P = .39). There was also no significant difference between the 2 closure methods in terms of mean (SD) scar width (both methods: 1.1 [0.8] mm, P = .89) at follow-up.Conclusions and relevanceCombination closure with adhesive strips and buried interrupted subcuticular suturing was not significantly associated with improved overall scar assessment compared with buried interrupted subcuticular suturing alone when evaluated by blinded observers or the patients themselves. Our results do not support the use of adhesive strips as a means to improve cosmetic outcomes or reduce scar width.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01979497.

Project description:BackgroundBased on a recent meta-analysis, a continuous suture technique with a suture to wound length ratio of at least 4:1, using a slowly absorbable monofilament suture material, is recommended for primary median laparotomy closure. Incisional hernia, which develops in 9 to 20% of patients, remains the major complication of abdominal wall closure. Current clinical data indicate that the incidence of incisional hernias increases by 60% between the first and the third year after median laparotomy, implicating that a follow-up period of 1 year postoperatively is too short with regard to this common complication. Trauma to the abdominal wall can be reduced by improvements in suture technique as well as suture material. Several factors, such as stitch length, suture tension, elasticity, and tensile strength of the suture material are discussed and currently under investigation. A Swedish randomized controlled trial showed a significant reduction in the incisional hernia rate by shortening the stitch length. However, a non-elastic thread was used and follow-up ended after 12 months. Therefore, we designed a multicenter, international, double-blinded, randomized trial to analyze the influence of stitch length, using an elastic, extra-long term absorbable monofilament suture, on the long term clinical outcome of abdominal wall closure.MethodsIn total, 468 patients undergoing an elective, median laparotomy will be randomly allocated to either the short stitch or the long stitch suture technique for abdominal wall closure in a 1:1 ratio. Centers located in Germany and Austria will participate. The primary endpoint measure is the incisional hernia rate 1 year postoperatively, as verified by ultrasound. The frequency of short term and long term complications as well as costs, length of hospital stay and patients' quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) will be considered as secondary parameters. Following hospital discharge, patients will be examined after 30 days and 1, 3, and 5 years after surgery.DiscussionThis study will provide further evidence on whether a short stitch suture technique in combination with an elastic, extra-long term absorbable monofilament suture can prevent incisional hernias in the long term, compared with the long stitch suture technique.Trial registrationNCT01965249 .

Project description:BACKGROUND:A recently published meta-analysis comparing metallic staples to sutures in orthopaedic procedures revealed three fold increase in risk for infection in stapled wounds. The studies included in the meta-analysis are at risk of bias due to experimental design limitations. A large randomized controlled trial is proposed to direct orthopaedic surgeons in their choice of wound closure material. METHODS/DESIGN:A parallel group randomized controlled trial with institutional review board approval will be conducted. Patients will be randomized intraoperatively to have skin wounds closed with sutures or staples. Dressings will be used to maintain blinding outcome assessors. The primary outcome measure will be a composite all-cause wound complication outcome measure composed of: infection, wound drainage, wound necrosis, blistering, dehiscence, suture abscess and material sensitivity reaction. An independent review board blinded to treatment assignment will adjudicate suspected complications based on clinical data. All deceased patients will also be reviewed. An interim analysis of complications will take place after half of the patients have been recruited. All data will be analyzed by a blinded statistician. Dichotomous primary and secondary outcome measures will be analyzed using the Chi-squared statistic. Continuous outcome measures will be analyzed using Student's?t-test. Subgroup analysis will compare infection rates using sutures versus staples in each anatomic area (upper extremity, pelvis/acetabulum, hip/femur, knee, ankle). A further subgroup analysis will be conducted comparing trauma patients to elective surgery patients. Non-infected revision surgery will also be compared to primary surgery. DISCUSSION:Wound closure material is an afterthought for many orthopaedic surgeons. The combined results of several comparative trials suggests that the choice of wound closure materials may have an impact on the rate of surgical site infections. However, the strength of the evidence is poor given the heterogeneity of the methods employed in previous studies. The following study protocol aims to guide surgeons in their choice of wound closure material by determining if there is a difference in complication rates in sutured and stapled wounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT01146236 (registered June 14, 2010).

Project description:BackgroundTaping is commonly prescribed to treat plantar fasciitis for runners by virtue of its alleged ability to offload the plantar fascia and facilitate positive injury prognosis. Our study aimed to investigate how different taping methods could change the loading on the plantar fascia during running using computational simulations.MethodsA finite element foot model was modified from a previous version to fit the study's purpose. The model featured twenty bones, bulk soft tissue, foot muscles, ligaments/tendons, and a solid part representing the plantar fascia. A runner performed several running trials under one untaped condition and two taped conditions-Low-Dye taping and Fascia taping, which were implemented by a physiotherapist using the Kinesio tapes. The captured motion data were processed to drive a scaled musculoskeletal model and calculate segmental kinematics, foot muscle force, and joint reaction force. These variables were then input as the boundary/loading conditions for finite element analyses of running. The principal tensile strain on the plantar fascia, subtalar eversion, and navicular height during the stance phase were averaged across five trials of each condition and compared using Friedman's test.ResultsMaximal subtalar eversion did not differ among conditions (p = 0.449). Fascia taping significantly reduced maximal strains on the fascia band (p = 0.034, Kendall's W = 0.64-0.76) and increased the navicular height (p = 0.013, Kendall's W = 0.84) compared with nontaping. There were no significant differences in all outcome variables between Low-Dye taping and nontaping (p = 0.173-0.618).ConclusionFrom a mechanical point of view, our study provided quantitative evidence to support the application of taping treatments for overstrained plantar fascia. The untensed fascia band by Fascia taping could be a potential indicator of pain relief for the runners. However, a prospective study targeting the patient population would be needed to address the point.The translational potential of this articleThe study quantified the loading status of the plantar fascia during running and provided mechanical evidence to support the usage of taping as a mean to reduce fascial strain, thus possibly controlling injury risks for the runners. The results of the study also highlighted the importance of selecting specific taping methods based on individuals' needs.