Skip to content

Comparison of Interrupted Suturing Versus Continuous Suturing in Laparotomy Wound Closed.

Comparison of Outcome of Emergency Laparotomy Wound Closed by Interrupted Suturing Versus Continuous Suturing.

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07601919
Enrollment
184
Registered
2026-05-22
Start date
2025-08-15
Completion date
2026-02-14
Last updated
2026-05-22

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Surgical Wound

Brief summary

Emergency laparotomy is associated with high morbidity, particularly due to wound dehiscence and infection. Choosing an optimal suturing technique can significantly impact patient outcomes, but data on the comparison of interrupted suturing with continuous suturing in emergency settings is limited. Therefore, the current study was planned, aiming to compare the outcome of emergency laparotomy wounds closed by interrupted suturing versus continuous suturing.

Detailed description

Interrupted suturing has been suggested to provide better tensile strength and allow for better healing by reducing tension across the wound. Several studies have reported a significantly lower incidence of wound dehiscence with interrupted suturing compared to continuous suturing. Additionally, interrupted suturing may lower the risk of wound infection by reducing bacterial migration along the suture line. Despite that, continuous suturing generally provides faster, more cost-effective wound closure with superior cosmetic outcomes and reduced short-term pain compared to interrupted sutures. If the study finds interrupted suturing to have superior outcomes, it could become the preferred method for emergency laparotomy closure, improving surgical success rates and patient recovery.

Interventions

PROCEDUREInterrupted Closure

Patients went through interrupted closure with Smead Jones technique using prolene 1.

PROCEDUREContinuous Closure

Patients went through continuous closure with prolene 1.

Sponsors

Muhammad Aamir Latif
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients of either gender * Aged 18-60 years * Undergoing emergency laparotomy

Exclusion criteria

* Unfit for surgery * History of diabetes * Immuno-compromised * Pregnant/lactating mothers * Malignancy * Very low or very high body mass index (\< 15kg/m2 or \> 30kg/m2)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Wound dehiscence10 daysThe frequency of patients who experienced spontaneous opening of the midline laparotomy sutures within 10 days of surgery was noted.
Wound infection10 daysThe frequency of patients who showed the presence of pus or any discharge at the surgical wound site, which was accompanied by pain, fever, raised white blood cell count (\> 11000), swelling, and erythema, was noted.

Countries

Pakistan

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORFarhan Ahmed

Benazir Bhutto Hospital/Rawalpindi Medical University and Allied Hospitals, Rawalpindi

STUDY_DIRECTORUsman Qureshi, FCPS

Holy Family Hospital/Rawalpindi Medical University and Allied Hospitals, Rawalpindi

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: May 23, 2026