Sutton G, Morgan S
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Oct;80(4):650-4.
To determine whether abdominal wound closure with a running, looped monofilament polybutester suture was as effective, inexpensive, and rapid as Smead-Jones closure using the same material.
Between April 19, 1990 and August 29, 1991, 154 patients undergoing major gynecologic surgery had wound closure using a running, looped monofilament polybutester suture. Controls were 154 patients undergoing similar surgical procedures in the 15 months immediately preceding the study period (January 5, 1989 to April 18, 1990) whose wounds were closed with 0 polybutester using the Smead-Jones technique. All patients received prophylactic cephalosporin antibiotic therapy and external pneumatic leg compression perioperatively. The subcutaneous tissues were not sutured after fascial closure, and the skin was closed with stainless-steel staples. There was no difference between the groups when compared by mean weight, mean ponderal index, number of previous abdominal operations, operative blood loss, or the use of chemotherapy or radiotherapy in the pre- or postoperative period. Both groups had similar rates of complicating medical conditions including insulin-dependent and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obstructive pulmonary disease, atherosclerotic coronary disease, or peripheral vascular disease.
The use of a running closure with looped monofilament polybutester suture in the study patients resulted in a reduction in operating time when compared with controls. The rates of superficial separation and wound infection were similar in both groups. In the study group, there was one minor fascial separation and one wound dehiscence, which occurred when the running suture was inadvertently snipped during debridement of a superficial infection.
Running closure with looped polybutester is an acceptable, inexpensive, and expeditious method of abdominal wound closure.
确定使用连续、环形单丝聚丁酯缝线进行腹部伤口缝合是否与使用相同材料的斯米德 - 琼斯缝合法一样有效、经济且快速。
在1990年4月19日至1991年8月29日期间,154例行大型妇科手术的患者采用连续、环形单丝聚丁酯缝线进行伤口缝合。对照组为在研究期之前15个月(1989年1月5日至1990年4月18日)接受类似手术的154例患者,其伤口采用斯米德 - 琼斯技术用0号聚丁酯缝合。所有患者围手术期均接受预防性头孢菌素抗生素治疗和下肢外部气动压迫。筋膜缝合后皮下组织不缝合,皮肤用不锈钢钉闭合。两组在平均体重、平均 ponderal 指数、既往腹部手术次数、术中失血或术前或术后化疗或放疗的使用方面无差异。两组的合并症发生率相似,包括胰岛素依赖型和非胰岛素依赖型糖尿病、高血压、阻塞性肺疾病、动脉粥样硬化性冠状动脉疾病或周围血管疾病。
与对照组相比,研究组患者使用连续环形单丝聚丁酯缝线缝合可减少手术时间。两组的浅表分离和伤口感染率相似。在研究组中,有1例轻度筋膜分离和1例伤口裂开,后者发生在浅表感染清创时连续缝线被意外剪断。
连续环形聚丁酯缝合法是一种可接受、经济且快速的腹部伤口缝合方法。