Three-year follow-up analysis of the short-stitch versus long-stitch technique for elective midline abdominal closure randomized-controlled (ESTOIH) trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown reduced incisional hernia rates 1 year after elective median laparotomy closure using a short-stitch technique. With hernia development continuing beyond the first postoperative year, we aimed to compare incisional hernias 3 years after midline closure using short or long stitches in patients from the ESTOIH trial. METHODS: The ESTOIH trial was a prospective, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized-controlled study of primary elective midline closure. Patients were randomized to fascia closure using a short- or long-stitch technique with a poly-4-hydroxybutyrate-based suture. A predefined 3-year follow-up analysis was performed with the radiological imaging-verified incisional hernia rate as the primary endpoint. RESULTS: The 3-year intention-to-treat follow-up cohort consisted of 414 patients (210 short-stitch and 204 long-stitch technique) for analysis. Compared with 1 year postoperatively, incisional hernias increased from 4.83% (20/414 patients) to 9.02% (36/399 patients, p = 0.0183). The difference between the treatment groups at 3 years (short vs. long stitches, 15/198 patients (7.58%) vs. 21/201 (10.45%)) was not significant (OR, 1.4233; 95% CI [0.7112-2.8485]; p = 0.31). CONCLUSION: Hernia rates increased significantly between one and 3 years postoperatively. The short-stitch technique using a poly-4-hydroxybutyrate-based suture is safe in the long term, while no significant advantage was found at 3 years postoperatively compared with the standard long-stitch technique. TRIAL REGISTRY: NCT01965249, registered on 18 October 2013.

Effects of the short-stitch technique for midline abdominal closure: short-term results from the randomised-controlled ESTOIH trial.

PURPOSE: The short-stitch technique for midline laparotomy closure has been shown to reduce hernia rates, but long stitches remain the standard of care and the effect of the short-stitch technique on short-term results is not well known. The aim of this study was to compare the two techniques, using an ultra-long-term absorbable elastic suture material. METHODS: Following elective midline laparotomy, 425 patients in 9 centres were randomised to receive wound closure using the short-stitch (USP 2-0 single thread, n = 215) or long-stitch (USP 1 double loop, n = 210) technique with a poly-4-hydroxybutyrate-based suture material (Monomax®). Here, we report short-term surgical outcomes. RESULTS: At 30 (+10) days postoperatively, 3 (1.40%) of 215 patients in the short-stitch group and 10 (4.76%) of 210 patients in the long-stitch group had developed burst abdomen [OR 0.2830 (0.0768-1.0433), p = 0.0513]. Ruptured suture, seroma and hematoma and other wound healing disorders occurred in small numbers without differences between groups. In a planned Cox proportional hazard model for burst abdomen, the short-stitch group had a significantly lower risk [HR 0.1783 (0.0379-0.6617), p = 0.0115]. CONCLUSIONS: Although this trial revealed no significant difference in short-term results between the short-stitch and long-stitch techniques for closure of midline laparotomy, a trend towards a lower rate of burst abdomen in the short-stitch group suggests a possible advantage of the short-stitch technique. TRIAL REGISTRY: NCT01965249, registered October 18, 2013.