Comparative Study of Abdominal Wall Closure Method – Hughes Technique versus Conventional Mass Closure in Reducing Incisional Hernia

Urwah Kafeel; Khurram Imtiaz; Muhammad Sulman Butt; Mohammad Saad; Rafia Yaseen; Muhammad Sufyan

doi:10.70749/ijbr.v3i1.590

Authors

Urwah Kafeel General Surgery Unit-1, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
Khurram Imtiaz Department of General and Laparoscopic Surgery, Imran Idrees Teaching Hospital, Sialkot, Punjab, Pakistan.
Muhammad Sulman Butt General Surgery Unit-1, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
Mohammad Saad General Surgery Unit-1, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
Rafia Yaseen Department of General Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
Muhammad Sufyan Neurosurgery Unit-2, Punjab Institute of Neurosciences, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i1.590

Keywords:

Abdominal wall Closure, Hughes Technique, Conventional Mass Closure, Incision Hernia

Abstract

Background: Laparotomy procedures often result in an incisional hernia. There are several methods developed to lessen the chances of incisional hernia after laparotomy. Hughes is an improved method compared to conventional mass closure. But it is not routinely practiced due to a scarcity of evidence in the local population. Objective: To compare the outcome of abdominal wall closure by Hughes technique versus conventional mass closure after laparotomy. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial. Place and Duration: Department of Surgery, Lahore General Hospital, from December 2022 to June 2023. Material and Methods: There were 100 individuals undergoing laparotomy enrolled. Consent was obtained and demographics were noted. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Closure was achieved in group A through the use of the Hughes technique. In group B, closure was done by using conventional mass closure technique. Outcomes were noted and analyzed in SPSS version 25. Results: Patients undergoing the Hughes technique, mean age was 46.18 ± 10.48 years. In Conventional mass closure group, mean age of patients was 39.98 ± 9.59 years. In the Hughes technique group, there were 36 (72%) males and 14 (28%) females. Patients undergoing conventional mass closure, there were 25 (50%) males and 25 (50%) females. The mean suture time was 14.44 ± 2.32 minutes with Hughes technique and 13.62 ± 2.06 minutes with conventional method (p>0.05). Wound infection was noted in [4 (8%) vs. 12 (24%), p<0.05]. But wound dehiscence and pain as almost similar in both groups (p>0.05). Incisional hernia developed in 14 (28%) cases with the Hughes technique, while in 27 (54%) cases with conventional mass closure (p<0.05). Conclusion: Hughes technique is superior to conventional mass closure in preventing the development of incisional hernia after surgery, making it more effective and beneficial.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bosanquet, D. C., Ansell, J., Abdelrahman, T., Cornish, J., Harries, R., Stimpson, A., Davies, L., Glasbey, J. C., Frewer, K. A., Frewer, N. C., Russell, D., Russell, I., & Torkington, J. (2015). Systematic review and meta-regression of factors affecting midline Incisional hernia rates: Analysis of 14 618 patients. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0138745. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138745

Pereira, J. A., Pera, M., & Grande, L. (2013). Incidence of Incisional hernia after open and Laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. Cirugía Española (English Edition), 91(1), 44-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cireng.2012.05.003

Van Ramshorst, G. H., Eker, H. H., Hop, W. C., Jeekel, J., & Lange, J. F. (2012). Impact of incisional hernia on health-related quality of life and body image: A prospective cohort study. The American Journal of Surgery, 204(2), 144-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.01.012

Diener, M. K., Voss, S., Jensen, K., Büchler, M. W., & Seiler, C. M. (2010). Elective midline laparotomy closure. Annals of Surgery, 251(5), 843-856. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181d973e4

Sajid, M., Parampalli, U., Baig, M., & McFall, M. (2011). A systematic review on the effectiveness of slowly-absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for abdominal fascial closure following laparotomy. International Journal of Surgery, 9(8), 615-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.09.006

Deerenberg, E. B., Harlaar, J. J., Steyerberg, E. W., Lont, H. E., Van Doorn, H. C., Heisterkamp, J., Wijnhoven, B. P., Schouten, W. R., Cense, H. A., Stockmann, H. B., Berends, F. J., Dijkhuizen, F. P., Dwarkasing, R. S., Jairam, A. P., Van Ramshorst, G. H., Kleinrensink, G., Jeekel, J., & Lange, J. F. (2015). Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 386(10000), 1254-1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60459-7

Rahbari, N. N., Knebel, P., Kieser, M., Bruckner, T., Bartsch, D. K., Friess, H., Mihaljevic, A. L., Stern, J., Diener, M. K., Voss, S., Rossion, I., Büchler, M. W., & Seiler, C. M. (2012). Design and current status of CONTINT: Continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy - a randomized controlled multicenter trial [NCT00544583]. Trials, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-72

Doherty, G. M. (2014). Current Diagnosis and Treatment Surgery 14/E. McGraw Hill Professional.

Van 't Riet, M., Steyerberg, E. W., Nellensteyn, J., Bonjer, H. J., & Jeekel, J. (2002). Meta-analysis of techniques for closure of midline abdominal incisions. British Journal of Surgery, 89(11), 1350-1356. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02258.x

Hodgson, N. C., Malthaner, R. A., & Østbye, T. (2000). The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure. Annals of Surgery, 231(3), 436-442. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200003000-00018

Rahbari, N. N., Knebel, P., Diener, M. K., Seidlmayer, C., Ridwelski, K., Stöltzing, H., & Seiler, C. M. (2009). Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery – Is there any consensus? BMC Surgery, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-9-8

Seiler, C. M., Bruckner, T., Diener, M. K., Papyan, A., Golcher, H., Seidlmayer, C., Franck, A., Kieser, M., Büchler, M. W., & Knaebel, H. (2009). Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions. Annals of Surgery, 249(4), 576-582. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31819ec6c8

Hughes, B. R., & Webster, D. (2011). Leslie Ernest Hughes. BMJ, 343(nov25 2), d7367-d7367. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7367

Godara, R., Garg, P., & Shankar, G. (2007). Comparative evaluation of Cardiff repair and mesh plasty in incisional hernias. Internet J Surg [Internet], 9.

A-Malik, R., & Scott, N. A. (2001). Double near and far Prolene suture closure: A technique for abdominal wall closure after laparostomy. Journal of British Surgery, 88(1), 146-147. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01614.x

Zaitoun, M. A., Algazar, M., & Elhorbity, M. A. (2020). Efficacy of far-near-near-far (Hughes) technique in closure of midline exploratory wound for reducing the incidence of incisional hernia in comparison with conventional mass closure. The Egyptian Journal of Surgery, 39(4), 900-905. https://journals.lww.com/ejos/fulltext/2020/39040/efficacy_of_far_near_near_far__hughes__technique.13.aspx

Heger, P., Pianka, F., Diener, M. K., & Mihaljevic, A. L. (2016). Current standards of abdominal wall closure techniques: conventional suture techniques. Der Chirurg, 87, 737-743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-016-0231-0

Van Ramshorst, G. H., Nieuwenhuizen, J., Hop, W. C., Arends, P., Boom, J., Jeekel, J., & Lange, J. F. (2009). Abdominal wound dehiscence in adults: Development and validation of a risk model. World Journal of Surgery, 34(1), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0277-y

Muysoms, F. E., Antoniou, S. A., Bury, K., Campanelli, G., Conze, J., Cuccurullo, D., De Beaux, A. C., Deerenberg, E. B., East, B., Fortelny, R. H., Gillion, J., Henriksen, N. A., Israelsson, L., Jairam, A., Jänes, A., Jeekel, J., López-Cano, M., Miserez, M., Morales-Conde, S., … Berrevoet, F. (2015). European hernia society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia, 19(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1342-5

Le Huu Nho, R., Mege, D., Ouaïssi, M., Sielezneff, I., & Sastre, B. (2012). Incidence and prevention of ventral incisional hernia. Journal of Visceral Surgery, 149(5), e3-e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2012.05.004

Conze, J., Binnebösel, M., Junge, K., & Schumpelick, V. (2010). Narbenhernie – Wie ist Zu verfahren? Der Chirurg, 81(3), 192-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-009-1817-6

Rajasekaran, C., Vijaykumar, K., Arulkumaran, M., & Meera, S. (2017). A randomized controlled study to compare the efficacy of Hughes abdominal repair with conventional abdominal closure-to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias in Indian population. International Surgery Journal, 4(7), 2291. https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20172783

Harries, R. L., Cornish, J., Bosanquet, D., Rees, B., Horwood, J., Islam, S., Bashir, N., Watkins, A., Russell, I. T., & Torkington, J. (2017). Hughes abdominal repair trial (HART)—abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: Feasibility trial for a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open, 7(12), e017235. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017235