Protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing wound COmplications in elective midline laparotomies after FAscia Closure using two different Techniques of Running sutures: COFACTOR trial
| dc.contributor.author | El Charif, Mohamad Hadi | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hassan, Zeina | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hoballah, Jamal Jawad | |
| dc.contributor.author | Khalife, Mohamad Jawad | |
| dc.contributor.author | Sbaity, Eman | |
| dc.contributor.department | Surgery | |
| dc.contributor.faculty | Faculty of Medicine (FM) | |
| dc.contributor.institution | American University of Beirut | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-01-24T12:13:13Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-01-24T12:13:13Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: Wound complications following midline laparotomies are common and the main source of postoperative morbidity including superficial or deep wound infection, skin dehiscence, fascia dehiscence, and incisional hernia. Abdominal closure complications are strongly associated with suture technique and material, in addition to other factors related to the patient and type of surgery performed. The traditional technique is to place the fascia sutures 1 cm apart and at least 1 cm away from the fascia edge. A Swedish study described a new technique of placing the sutures 5 mm apart and 5 mm away from the fascia edge, resulting in lower rates of abdominal wound complications. This study has a number of limitations. There is a need for improved quality evidence to convince the surgical community to change the closure technique of abdominal wounds aiming to reduce morbidity, which is exemplified in incisional hernias and other various postop complications. Methods: This is a 1:1 randomized, controlled, patient- and assessor-blinded, parallel design, superiority trial, with a primary endpoint of incisional hernia at 1 year. The study will be conducted at AUBMC over a 3-year period. Patients planned for a non-emergent midline laparotomy for general surgery or vascular procedure will be randomized to either fascia closure technique. In order to detect a drop of 12% in the incidence of incisional hernia, with 80% power and an alpha of 0.05, we will need to recruit 114 patients per arm. After adjusting for loss to follow-up, target recruitment is 274 subjects. We will compare both arms for the primary, secondary, and exploratory outcomes, using chi-square or t test as appropriate. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression will be done. Discussion: This trial will assess postop complications following abdominal midline wound closures via two different suturing techniques. This trial will generate evidence-based conclusions that will allow surgeons to assess the role of a new abdominal closure technique in decreasing short- and long-term postoperative complications, for a commonly performed procedure. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03527433. Registered on 17 May 2018 before starting participant enrollment. © 2020 The Author(s). | |
| dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04507-8 | |
| dc.identifier.eid | 2-s2.0-85087534104 | |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 32616017 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10938/32994 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | BioMed Central | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Trials | |
| dc.source | Scopus | |
| dc.subject | Abdominal fascia closure | |
| dc.subject | Incisional hernias | |
| dc.subject | Midline laparotomies | |
| dc.subject | Randomized controlled trial | |
| dc.subject | Wound suture | |
| dc.subject | Abdominal wound closure techniques | |
| dc.subject | Double-blind method | |
| dc.subject | Elective surgical procedures | |
| dc.subject | Hernia, abdominal | |
| dc.subject | Humans | |
| dc.subject | Incisional hernia | |
| dc.subject | Laparotomy | |
| dc.subject | Lebanon | |
| dc.subject | Postoperative complications | |
| dc.subject | Randomized controlled trials as topic | |
| dc.subject | Suture techniques | |
| dc.subject | Abdominal wound closure | |
| dc.subject | Article | |
| dc.subject | Comparative effectiveness | |
| dc.subject | Controlled study | |
| dc.subject | Elective surgery | |
| dc.subject | Evidence based practice | |
| dc.subject | Evisceration | |
| dc.subject | Follow up | |
| dc.subject | Human | |
| dc.subject | Incidence | |
| dc.subject | Intermethod comparison | |
| dc.subject | Morbidity | |
| dc.subject | Parallel design | |
| dc.subject | Postoperative complication | |
| dc.subject | Quality of life | |
| dc.subject | Suture technique | |
| dc.subject | Wound complication | |
| dc.subject | Wound dehiscence | |
| dc.subject | Abdominal wall hernia | |
| dc.subject | Adverse event | |
| dc.subject | Comparative study | |
| dc.subject | Devices | |
| dc.subject | Double blind procedure | |
| dc.subject | Randomized controlled trial (topic) | |
| dc.title | Protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing wound COmplications in elective midline laparotomies after FAscia Closure using two different Techniques of Running sutures: COFACTOR trial | |
| dc.type | Article |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1