Comparative study of efficacy of modified Smead-Jones technique versus conventional closure of midline laparotomy wound

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Introduction: One of the most commonly used assess route for laparotomy is midline incision. But midline laparotomy incision also has major drawback such as increased incidence of postoperative wound dehiscence and incisional hernia. Methodology: In our study we compared two different types of mass abdominal closure technique and measured the primary outcome by measuring the incidence of wound dehiscence. Result: Out of 90 patients included in the study, the most common cause for midline laparotomy were duodenal perforation and ileal perforation, followed by pre-pyloric perforation. Out of 45 cases in control group, 6 cases (13.3%) and in study group 1 case (2.2%) had incidence of wound dehiscence. Conclusion: Modified Smead-Jones technique decreases the incidence of wound dehiscence and thus concludes that this technique has low incidence of wound dehiscence as compared to conventional technique and might also decrease the incidence of incisional hernia.