Publication:

Comparative study of efficacy of modified continuous smead-jones versus interrupted method of midline laparotomy fascial closure for contaminated cases

Background Mass closure of midline laparotomy fascial wound is undoubtedly superior to layered closure technique. For elective surgeries continuous method is recommended over interrupted to avoid wound dehiscence, but controversy exists in the literature about the best method of midline fascial suturing in contaminated cases. Thus this is the study to compare two techniques of closure.

Methods Prospective non-randomised study. Two groups are study group who underwent modified smead-Jones method of fascia closure and control group who underwent interrupted closure. Outcome parameters studied were time required for closure, length of suture material needed, postoperative wound infection and wound dehiscence. Data was analysed statistically using Chi-square test.

Results Time required for study group was significantly lesser than control and the length of suture required was also significantly less. Wound infection rate in study group was lesser than control but the difference was statistically insignificant (p >0.05). Wound dehiscence rate was significantly less in the study group (p < 0.05) compared to control group.

Conclusions In Smead-Jones method of closure tension between two loops is distributed in such a way that the fascial edges are well approximated. Originally described method was interrupted. Continuous method has advantage of being faster and has less risk of wound dehiscence due to dynamic distribution of increased tension in postoperative period due to see-saw effect. We proposed modification of original Smead-Jones technique by doing it in continuous manner to increase the benefits and found this method to be fast, cost-effective, equally effective in controlling wound infection and better than interrupted technique to prevent wound dehiscence.