Abstract Objective The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the postoperative surgical outcomes of continuous versus interrupted closure of the midline laparotomy wound with absorbable suture material. Methods Randomised control trials (RCTs) reporting postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing closure with continuous versus interrupted closure of midline laparotomy wound with absorbable suture material were selected from medical electronic databases and meta-analysis was conducted by the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration using statistical software RevMan version 5. Results Four RCTs on 2,198 patients reporting postoperative outcomes were included. In the random effect model analysis, the wound dehiscence [odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95%, CI (0.52, 1.64), Z = 0.26, P = 0.79] was comparable between the two groups with no heterogeneity among the included studies. Incisional hernia was also comparable between the two groups [OR 0.82, 95%, CI (0.59, 1.14), Z = 1.19, P = 0.23] with mild heterogeneity among the included studies. Wound infection was also comparable between the two groups [OR 1.30, 95%, CI (0.78, 2.17), Z = 1.01, P = 0.31] with moderate statistical heterogeneity among the included studies. Conclusion The continuous suturing closure had no superiority over interrupted closure for the midline laparotomy wound on comparing wound dehiscence, incisional hernia and wound infection. Due to the paucity of the RCTs, a major multi-centre RCT is needed to validate these findings.