The British journal of surgery · 2011
Randomized clinical trial comparing polypropylene or polydioxanone for midline abdominal wall closure.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bloemen A, van Dooren P, Huizinga B F, Hoofwijk A G M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal surgery, often requiring surgical intervention. This prospective randomized trial compared suture materials for closure of the fascia after abdominal surgery.
METHODS: In 456 patients the abdominal fascia was closed with either non-absorbable (polypropylene; Prolene(®)) or absorbable (polydioxanone; PDS(®)) suture material. Follow-up was by clinical examination and ultrasonography at 6-month intervals. Outcome measures were incisional hernia, surgical-site infection and suture sinus.
RESULTS: Some 223 patients were analysed after closure with Prolene(®) and 233 after PDS(®) . Median follow-up was 32 and 31 months respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia between the groups: 20·2 per cent (45 of 223) for Prolene(®) and 24·9 per cent (58 of 233) with PDS(®) (P = 0·229). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a cumulative rate after 4 years of 23·7 and 30·2 per cent for Prolene(®) and PDS(®) respectively (P = 0·222). Secondary outcome measures showed no significant differences.
CONCLUSION: The incidence of incisional hernia in both groups was higher than expected from previous literature. There were no significant differences between the two suture methods.
REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN65599814 (http://www.clinical-trials.com).
METHODS: In 456 patients the abdominal fascia was closed with either non-absorbable (polypropylene; Prolene(®)) or absorbable (polydioxanone; PDS(®)) suture material. Follow-up was by clinical examination and ultrasonography at 6-month intervals. Outcome measures were incisional hernia, surgical-site infection and suture sinus.
RESULTS: Some 223 patients were analysed after closure with Prolene(®) and 233 after PDS(®) . Median follow-up was 32 and 31 months respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia between the groups: 20·2 per cent (45 of 223) for Prolene(®) and 24·9 per cent (58 of 233) with PDS(®) (P = 0·229). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a cumulative rate after 4 years of 23·7 and 30·2 per cent for Prolene(®) and PDS(®) respectively (P = 0·222). Secondary outcome measures showed no significant differences.
CONCLUSION: The incidence of incisional hernia in both groups was higher than expected from previous literature. There were no significant differences between the two suture methods.
REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN65599814 (http://www.clinical-trials.com).