全层缝合法关闭腹部Ⅲ类切口的应用探讨

目的比较腹部Ⅲ类切口采用全层缝合法与传统分层缝合法关腹的效果,以指导其临床应用。方法 2004年4月～2011年3月行急诊开腹手术且符合Ⅲ类切口标准的患者298例,观察组162例采用全层缝合法关腹,对照组136例采用分层缝合法关腹。观察并比较两组患者术后切口并发症的发生情况。结果观察组与对照组平均手术时间及平均出血量比较差异均无统计学意义(110.9 vs.129.7,90.8 vs.115.3,P>0.05)。观察组术后使用镇痛药物患者比例高于对照组(22.2%vs.11.0%,P<0.05),术后早期(48 h内)下床活动患者比例低于对照组(38.3%vs.72.1%,P<0.01),平均拆线时间延长(15.4 vs.8.4,P<0.01)。观察组术后发生并发症21例(13.0%),对照组50例(36.8%),组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。观察组切口感染、全层裂开、窦道形成发生率均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),而在切口脂肪液化、切口疝发生率较对照组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。对于不存在弥漫性腹膜炎、手术时间长,肥胖、糖尿病等危险因素的患者,两组术后各种切口并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论全层缝合能降低腹部Ⅲ类切口感染、窦道形成、全层裂开的发生率,但拆线时间延长,术后疼痛感更明显,早期下床活动者减少,更适用于存在弥漫性腹膜炎、手术时间长,肥胖、糖尿病等危险因素的患者。     

急诊腹部手术切口缝合方式对切口愈合的影响

目的比较全层连续缝合法和分层缝合法在急诊腹部手术中的切口愈合效果。方法将符合纳入标准的急诊腹部手术患者随机分为全层缝合组和分层缝合组,比较2组患者的切口愈合效果。结果全层缝合组的关腹时间短于分层缝合组（P=0.000）,但在切口液化发生率、切口感染发生率、总切口并发症发生率、切口愈合及术后住院时间方面,2组的差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。26例细菌培养结果为阳性（全层缝合组10例,分层缝合组16例）的患者中,致病菌主要为大肠埃希菌（11例）和铜绿假单胞菌（7例）。结论相较于分层缝合法,急诊腹部手术中采用全层缝合法既不增加切口并发症的发生率,又节省手术时间,对于危重患者具有重要的意义。     

结直肠手术下腹正中切口全层与分层缝合技术比较

目的比较结直肠手术下腹正中切口全层缝合与分层缝合技术应用的切口愈合能力差异。方法回顾性比较1998-2000年和2007-2008年间两组各65例患者,分析丝线分层缝合关腹和可吸收双股缝线全层关腹组的数据源,比较两种材料和方法条件下切口愈合率和并发症。结果全层缝合组手术耗时明显比分层缝合少（6．31±0．58min vs9．58±0．95min）。切口一期愈合和甲级愈合率两组间无显著差异,脂肪液化（3．07％vs15．38％）、切口感染（3．07％vs9．24％）和切口裂开（1．54％vs13．85％）等近期并发症和慢性窦道（1．54％vs7．69％）等远期并发症比较差异显著（P〈0．05）。全层缝合组无切口疝发生,分层缝合组2例切口疝,两组间比较无统计学差异（P〉0．05）。结论全层连续缝合技术较之分层缝合对预防结直肠手术下腹正中切口感染和裂开等效果显著,“宽对合”是防止术后切口急性和后期并发症的关键技术。     

可吸收缝线连续缝合间断打结在关闭腹部正中切口中的应用

目的：观察可吸收缝线连续缝合间断打结在腹部正中切口缝合中的应用效果。方法回顾性分析2012年9∽12月,郑州大学附属肿瘤医院接受腹部手术的患者70例。随机分成二组,观察组采用可吸收缝线全层连续缝合间断打结,对照组采用普通缝线间断全层缝合。比较二组患者切口感染、线结反应、脂肪液化、切口裂开的发生情况。结果术后二组均有患者出现切口红肿和渗出,观察组脂肪液化3例,感染1例,线结反应0例,切口裂开0例,经换药和充分引流、抗感染后,愈合良好;对照组脂肪液化5例,切口感染6例,线结反应15例,切口裂开0例,经换药和充分引流、抗感染后,有部分需要拆除缝线。观察组切口感染、线结反应的发生率明显低于对照组,二组比较差异有统计学意义（χ2＝3．968、20．741,P＝0．026、0．000）;脂肪液化二组比较差异无统计学意义（χ2＝0．565, P＝0．452）。结论可吸收缝线全层连续缝合间断打结方法与普通缝线全层间断缝合方法相比具有预防切口裂开的特点,同时具备减少切口脂肪液化、感染、线结反应等发生的优点,值得推广。     

腹壁正中切口关闭缝合的荟萃分析

目的 以相关的文献资料,对腹壁正中切口缝合关闭技术的安全性和疗效进行荟萃分析.方法 查询MedLine和Embase数据库中1981至2009年有关腹壁正中切口关闭缝合的文献,要求为具有1年以上随访、采用不同缝合技术和(或)不同缝线材料进行腹壁正中切口关腹的随机对照研究.分析指标包括切口疝、伤口裂开、伤口感染、缝线窦道形成等.结果 共纳入文献13篇,共计6263例患者.与连续缝合相比,间断缝合切口疝发生率明显增加(OR=0.80,95%CI:0.66～1.00;P=0.05),两种缝合方式在切口裂开、切口感染和窦道形成方面无显著差异.与连续不吸收缝线缝合相比,采用连续快吸收缝线的切口疝发生率显著增加(8.3%比15.8%,P＜0.05);而连续不吸收缝线缝合的窦道形成发生率更高(5.6%比1.0%,P＜0.05).与连续慢吸收缝线缝合相比,连续快吸收缝线缝合切口疝发生率更高(10.0%比15.8%,P＜0.05);与间断快吸收缝线缝合相比,使用间断不吸收缝线缝合窦道形成发生率更高(0比8.8%,P＜0.05);连续慢吸收缝线缝合与连续不吸收缝线缝合相比,两者切口疝、切口感染、切口裂开发生率等差异无统计学意义,而连续不吸收缝线缝合窦道形成发生率会明显增加(OR=0.47,95%CI:0.24～0.92;P＜0.05).连续缝合时,缝线长度与切口长度比值(SL/WL)＜4∶1与≥4∶1相比,切口裂开、切口感染差异无统计学意义;但SL/WL＜4:l时切口疝发生率会明显增加(P＜0.05).结论 腹壁正中切口缝合关闭以连续全层(SL/WL为≥4∶1)慢吸收缝线关腹为宜,适宜的关腹技术和材料,可以明显减少切口裂开、切口感染和切口疝的发生.     

肥胖患者腹部切口皮肤及皮下脂肪浅层贯穿缝合法（附162例临床分析）

目的 改进肥胖患者腹部手术切口的缝合技术。方法 以腹壁皮下脂肪厚度〉2．5cm作为肥胖的标准，将241例肥胖者随机分为观察组（162例）和对照组（79例）。观察组腹部手术切口皮肤及皮下脂肪浅层用间断贯穿缝合并放置引流条引流的缝合方法；对照组用传统的皮肤皮下脂肪分层缝合法或贯穿全层缝合法。将两组进行比较，观察其切口脂肪液化、感染、裂开的发生率和手术后切口完全愈合的时间。结果 观察组脂肪液化、感染、皮下脂肪层完全或部分裂开的发生率较对照组明显降低（P〈0．01）；切口愈合时间明显缩短（P〈0．01）。结论 在缝合肥胖者的腹部切口时，贯穿缝合皮肤及浅层皮下脂肪同时加引流条引流的方法是一种有效的预防脂肪液化的缝合方法。此方法操作方便，节省时间。     

腹壁缝合关闭方式的临床随机对照研究

目的 探讨不同腹壁切口缝合方式的切口愈合效果.方法 将2009年1月至2010年12月间收治的腹部正中切口及旁正中切口病人168例,随机分为两组:观察组85例,采用全层缝合方式缝合腹壁;对照组83例,采用传统的分层缝合方式缝合腹壁.结果 观察组切口一期愈合率96.5%,对照组为77.1%;观察组切口脂肪液化率为2.4%...     

全层连续加内减张缝合在预防腹壁切口裂开的应用

目的探讨全层连续加内减张缝合在预防腹壁切口裂开的应用价值。方法对72例可能发生腹壁切口裂开的高危病人采用全层连续加内减张缝合的方法进行临床分析。结果72例中,无一例发生切口裂开,切口脂肪液化5例,切口感染3例。结论全层连续加内减张缝合不仅能很好的预防腹壁切口裂开,而且操作简单、省时,术后不用拆除减张缝线,切口感染率较低,减少病人痛苦,缩短住院时间,减少住院费用,临床应用效果满意。     

预防性内减张缝合在腹部外科手术中的应用

目的 介绍腹部手术应用可吸收缝线行预防性内减张缝合的方法,并评价其优越性.方法 将249例患者按照前瞻性随机对照方法,分为试验组120例,对照组129例.二组均使用人工合成可吸收缝线行分层腹壁筋膜连续缝合法闭合腹壁切口,试验组加用1号Dexon可吸收缝合线行预防性皮下内减张缝合.观察对比二组患者术后切口裂开、切口感染、脂肪液化、皮下血肿、切口疝发生情况.结果 试验组切口裂开、切口疝发生率与对照组比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=5.899,P=0.037;χ2=8.029,P=0.030);二组切口感染率、脂肪液化率、皮下血肿发生率无统计学意义(χ2=0.216,P=0.771;χ2=0.015,P=1.000;χ2=0.421,P=0.610).结论 Dexon可吸收缝线预防性内减张缝合可以有效地防止切口裂开,减少切口疝,值得推广使用.     

采用皮下全程持续负压引流行腹部手术切口缝合疗效研究

目的 探讨皮下全程持续负压引流方法进行腹部手术切口缝合的临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析2014年7月至2015年3月南京军区福州总医院肝胆外科行肝胆胰手术的136例病人的临床资料。按切口缝合方式不同将病人分为A、B两组,其中A组（72例）采用皮下持续负压引流法,B组（64例）采用早期挤压排液法。分析两组病人腹壁缝合时间、切口愈合情况、切口脂肪液化例数、切口裂开例数、切口愈合时间、病人满意度等指标。结果 A、B两组病人腹壁缝合时间、切口愈合时间、病人满意度分别为23（14～30）min、9（7～15）d、10（5～10）分和29（18～42）min、12（8～17）d、8（4～10）分,差异均有统计学意义（P均＜0.001）;A、B两组病人切口液化例数、甲级愈合率分别为3例、94.44%和12例、81.25%,差异均有统计学意义（P均＜0.05）;A、B组病人切口裂开数分别为0例和1例,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 不缝合脂肪层的皮下全程持续负压引流联合皮肤皮内缝合,不仅缩短手术时间,促进切口愈合;而且肌肤美观,满足人们的审美需求,临床上值得推广。     

�����п�ȫ������ֲ��϶����о�

??Abdominal wounds clousure control study between a single-layer suture and layered suture ZHANG Yu-chao, YANG Bin, CHEN Shuang, et al. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China Correspongding author: CHEN Shuang, E-mail: md.chens@medmail.com.cn Abstract Objective To compare the effect of abdominal wounds clousur between a single-layer suture and layered suture Methods Two hundreds and eighty-three cases performed abdominal operation between December 2003 and December 2007 at Memorial Hospital of SunYat-Sen University were allocated to a single-layer suture group and layered suture group. The wound healing and complications incidence were compared. Results None wound dehiscence case was recorded in a single-layer suture group but 5 cases in layered suture group. Incision liquefied occurred in 3 cases in a single-layer suture group and 7 cases in layered suture group. All cases were cured by dressing. Wound infection occurred in 8 cases in the third type wound of a single-layer suture group and 17 cases in layered suture group including 5 cases of the second type wound and 12 cases of the third type wound. The differences were significant statistically (P<0.05). In sinus formation, 2 cases of the third type wound occurred in 14 and 28 days after operation in a single-layer suture group. One case of the second type wound and 6 cases of the third type wound occurred in layered suture group. The differences were significant statistically (P<0.05) . One case of incisionai hernia in middle incision occurred in a single-layer suture group. Three cases of incisionai hernia occurred in layered suture group including 2 cases in middle incision and 1cases in paramiddle incision. The differences were significant statistically (P >0.05) . Conclusion A single-layer suture is a safe, fast and effective device in abdominal wounds clousure. It may be applied to lower the occurrence of early wound dehiscence and lower the occurrence of wound infection, sinus formation in the thied type wound cases     

Running synthetic absorbable suture in abdominal wound closure

One hundred thirty-four consecutive, unselected, primary, linear abdominal surgical incisions were closed with running polyglactin suture. The only wound complication was a single infection. No wound dehiscence, incisional hernia, late wound pain or suture sinus occurred.     

Study of Two Techniques for Midline Laparotomy Fascial Wound Closure

To study the results of two techniques, simple interrupted closure and continuous with intermittent Aberdeen knot technique for midline laparotomy fascial wound closure. A random selection of 200 midline laparotomy cases was done. In one group (group A) of 100 cases, midline fascial wound closure was done with continuous sutures with intermittent Aberdeen knot technique using Prolene No. 1 suture material. In the other group (group B) of 100 cases, closure was done with the technique of simple interrupted sutures with Prolene No.1 suture material. Comparison of both the techniques regarding preoperative status and postoperative complication such as incisional hernia, wound dehiscence, suture sinus formation, stitch granuloma, and chronic wound pain was done according to clinical examination and recorded in the pro forma prepared. In group A, postoperative complications were incisional hernia 3 %, wound dehiscence 4 %, and suture sinus formation 1 %. In group B, postoperative complication were incisional hernia 5 %, wound dehiscence 4 %, and suture sinus formation 1 %. All these complications were statistically insignificant, in both group comparisons. While the complication such as stitch granuloma 3 %, chronic wound pain 3 %, and wound infection 4 % in group A was significantly less than in group B where the complication of stitch granuloma was 12 %, chronic wound pain 13 %, and wound infection 13 % (P value 0.03, P value 0.018, and P value 0.048, respectively). Both the techniques, simple interrupted suture closure and continuous with intermittent Aberdeen knot closure for midline laparotomy fascial wounds, show a similar rate of postoperative complication such as incisional hernia, wound dehiscence, and suture sinus formation. But the continuous suturing with intermittent Aberdeen knot technique is a better option to prevent complications such as stitch granuloma, chronic wound pain, and wound infection, which are higher in the simple interrupted fascial wound closure technique.     

Abdominal wound closure with a continuous monofilament polypropylene suture. Experience with 1,000 consecutive cases

We report our experience with 1,000 consecutive abdominal wound closures using continuous monofilament polypropylene (Prolene) sutures. Wound dehiscence occurred in four patients (0.4%), and incisional hernia occurred in seven patients (0.7%). The incidence of persistent suture sinus was less than 1%. A comparison of these results with the reported data showed that this method was at least equal to other types of wound closure. While the polypropylene suture is more difficult to handle than traditional sutures, it is probably the preferred suture for contaminated and dirty wounds. It has eliminated the need for retention sutures in our practice, and its use as a continuous, running closure has offered the advantage over the usual interrupted technique of being simpler, faster, and more cost effective. Sepsis has continued to be the greatest cause of failure of abdominal wounds to heal.     

A comparison between different suture techniques in lumbar spine surgery

As a result of solicited muscles, strong friction, and tensile force on cutaneous tissue, the difference in closure procedure and management strategies and complications of surgical incision healing is a real challenge in lumbar spine surgery. We performed a retrospective study to compare different types of wound closure in lumbar spine surgery. 4383 patients were included in this study. Wound dehiscence was more common in the intracutaneous suture group than in the far- near-near-far suture group. Delayed wound healing occurred more in the far-near near-far suture group than intracutaneous suture group. Also, the far-near near-far interrupted point suture group showed a higher ratio of delayed wound healing compared with crossover suture. The superficial wound infection rate was roughly the same in all types of sutures with an average value of 0.79% with 0.81% SD. This is a preliminary study to compare different types of operative wounds showing the pros and cons related to each option.     

Controlled clinical trial of three suture materials for abdominal wall closure after bowl operations

One hundred sixty-one consecutive patients who underwent bowel procedures were randomly assigned a nonabsorbable multifilament suture material, a nonabsorbable monofilament suture material or a long-term absorbable suture material for abdominal closure. All patients had midline incisions; closure was by an interrupted single layer technique. Patients were evaluated 1 month, 6 months and 1 year after operation. No statistically significant difference was seen in the incidence of wound infection in these groups. By 1 year, six patients had incisional hernias, none in the long-term absorbable suture group. The absence of suture sinus formation and the failure to demonstrate an increased incidence of wound dehiscence or incisional hernia imply that long-term absorbable suture material may be the most appropriate choice after bowel operations.     

Addition of Rectus Sheath Relaxation Incisions to Emergency Midline Laparotomy for Peritonitis to prevent Fascial Dehiscence

The incidence of fascial dehiscence and incisional hernia after two methods for abdominal wound closure (rectus sheath relaxation incisions and conventional mass closure) was studied in a randomized prospective clinical trial in a consecutive series of 100 patients undergoing midline laparotomy for peritonitis. The two groups were well matched for etiologies of peritonitis, the surgical procedures performed, and the presence of known risk factors for fascial dehiscence. Fifty patients each were randomized either to the conventional continuous mass closure procedure or the rectus sheath relaxation incision technique (designed to increase wound elasticity and decrease tension in the suture line) using identical polypropylene sutures. The incidence of postoperative complications such as duration of ileus, chest infection, and wound infection were not statistically different between the two groups. The intensity of postoperative pain in the rectus sheath relaxation incision group was significantly less. The incidence of wound hematoma was significantly increased in the rectus sheath relaxation incision group. The incidences of fascial dehiscence (16% vs,28%; p < 0.05) and incisional hernia (18% vs, 30%; p < 0.05) were significantly lower after rectus sheath relaxation incisions compared to conventional mass closure. Closure of the midline laparotomy wound in cases of peritonitis using the rectus sheath relaxation technique is safe and less painful, provides increased wound elasticity and decreased tension on the suture line, and significantly decreases the incidence of wound dehiscence.