Saudi medical journal · 2001
Continuous double loop closure for midline laparotomy wounds.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное 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.
Nasir G A, Baker K K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficiency of continuous double loop closure of midline laparotomy wounds and how it prevents and reduces wound dehiscence.
METHODS: A prospective study of one hundred patients who underwent laparotomy through midline incision in Basrah General Hospital over a one year period. This study is designed to compare the difference between 2 suturing techniques for closure of midline laparotomy wounds, one is new and unpopular to use, which is the continuous double loop closure, and the other one is the continuous mass closure technique.
RESULTS: By comparison of the 2 techniques, we found that infection of wounds was less using the continuous double loop closure technique (12%) as compared with the control (18%). We also found that wound dehiscence is nil with the continuous double loop closure technique as compared to 8% with the control.
CONCLUSION: The continuous double loop closure technique is superior in closure of midline laparotomy wounds and prevention of wound dehiscence and we recommend it for closure of these wounds in high risk patients.
METHODS: A prospective study of one hundred patients who underwent laparotomy through midline incision in Basrah General Hospital over a one year period. This study is designed to compare the difference between 2 suturing techniques for closure of midline laparotomy wounds, one is new and unpopular to use, which is the continuous double loop closure, and the other one is the continuous mass closure technique.
RESULTS: By comparison of the 2 techniques, we found that infection of wounds was less using the continuous double loop closure technique (12%) as compared with the control (18%). We also found that wound dehiscence is nil with the continuous double loop closure technique as compared to 8% with the control.
CONCLUSION: The continuous double loop closure technique is superior in closure of midline laparotomy wounds and prevention of wound dehiscence and we recommend it for closure of these wounds in high risk patients.