Pandley 2013.
| Methods |
RCT Methods to control for contributory patient factors: none |
|
| Participants |
Age: Group 1 (mean): 54 Group 2 (mean): 56 Gender: Group 1: female 26.0% Group 2: female 22.0% Types of incisions: all participants had a midline incision Types of surgery: Emergency surgery: Group 1 73.5%; Group 2 77.1% Group 1: bowel obstruction 15.1%, hemoperitoneum 9.4%; blunt trauma 10.4%; abdominal mass 9.4%; gut gangrene 1.9%; umbilical hernia 2.8% Group 2: bowel obstruction 17.1%, hemoperitoneum 11.4%; blunt trauma 8.6%; abdominal mass 13.3%; gut gangrene 2.9%; umbilical hernia 1.9% Contamination classification of included participants: not specifically reported. Reported "perforation" as Group 1 45.3%; Group 2 40.0% Preoperative antibiotic use: not described Prognostic patient factors: Group 1: BMI (mean) 28.4; diabetes 6.6%; smoker 24.5% Group 2: BMI (mean) 27.6; diabetes 8.6%; smoker 22.9% Inclusion criteria: all participants undergoing an elective or emergency midline laparotomy for various indications Exclusion criteria: pregnancy, presence of an abdominal hernia, lack of informed consent, age < 18 years, and previous laparotomy |
|
| Interventions |
Comparisons reported: Group 2: Sutures: polypropylene (monofilament, non‐absorbable) Suture technique: continuous Closure method: mass Group 2: Sutures: polyglactin‐910 (multifilament, fast absorbable) Suture technique: continuous Closure method: mass Characteristics of surgeons: not reported |
|
| Outcomes | Dehiscence: not defined | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not clearly described |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not clearly described |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not clearly described |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | All participants accounted for with no losses to follow‐up |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | There was no evidence of selective reporting |
| Other bias | Low risk | The study appears to be free of other sources of bias |