Midline versus transverse incision in major abdominal surgery: a randomized, double-blind equivalence trial (POVATI: ISRCTN60734227).

OBJECTIVE: There are 2 main types of access for patients requiring major open, elective abdominal surgery: the midline or the transverse approach. The aim of this study is to compare both approaches by focusing on postoperative pain, complications, and frequency of incisional hernias. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: A recent Cochrane review suggested that transverse incisions may be less painful but incisional hernia rates do not differ. METHODS: Randomized, patient- and observer-blinded, monocentric, equivalence clinical trial. Patients were scheduled for elective primary abdominal incisions. Composite primary end point measured 48 hours after surgery was the total amount of analgesics (piritramide) required in the last 24 hours and pain (Visual Analogue Scale). Secondary end points were early-onset and late complications. This study is registered in the ISRCTN registry and has the ID number ISRCTN60734227. RESULTS: Two hundred patients (101 midline and 99 transverse) were randomized. Both incision types resulted in similar amounts of required analgesics (95% confidence interval [-0.38; -0.33] was included in the equivalence level). For the Visual Analogue Scale, both the 95% and 90% CI (0-10) were neither within the equivalence levels nor were their differences significant at the 5% level. No relevant differences between midline and transverse incisions were observed for 30-day mortality (2 vs. 2, P = 0.99), mortality after one year (15 vs. 23, P = 0.15), pulmonary complications (13 vs. 17, P = 0.43), median length of hospital stay (11 vs. 12 days, P = 0.08), median time to tolerance of solid food (12 vs. 14 days, P = 0.30), and incisional hernias after one year (13 vs. 8, P = 0.48). More wound infections occurred in the transverse group (15 vs. 5, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The decision about the incision should be driven by surgeon preference with respect to the patient's disease and anatomy.

Postsurgical pain outcome of vertical and transverse abdominal incision: design of a randomized controlled equivalence trial [ISRCTN60734227].

BACKGROUND: There are two ways to open the abdominal cavity in elective general surgery: vertically or transversely. Various clinical studies and a meta-analysis have postulated that the transverse approach is superior to other approaches as regards complications. However, in a recent survey it was shown that 90 % of all abdominal incisions in visceral surgery are still vertical incisions. This discrepancy between existing recommendations of clinical trials and clinical practice could be explained by the lack of acceptance of these results due to a number of deficits in the study design and analysis, subsequent low internal validity, and therefore limited external generalisability. The objective of this study is to address the issue from the patient's perspective. METHODS: This is an intraoperatively randomized controlled observer and patient-blinded two-group parallel equivalence trial. The study setting is the Department of General-, Visceral-, Trauma Surgery and Outpatient Clinic of the University of Heidelberg, Medical School. A total of 172 patients of both genders, aged over 18 years who are scheduled for an elective abdominal operation and are eligible for either a transverse or vertical incision. To show equivalence of the two approaches or the superiority of one of them from the perspective of the patient, a primary endpoint is defined: the pain experienced by the patient (VAS 0-100) on day two after surgery and the amount of analgesic required (piritramide [mg/h]). A confidence interval approach will be used for analysis. A global alpha-Level of 0.05 and a power of 0.8 is guaranteed, resulting in a size of 86 patients for each group. Secondary endpoints are: time interval to open and close the abdomen, early-onset complications (frequency of burst abdomen, postoperative pulmonary complications, and wound infection) and late complications (frequency of incisional hernias). Different outcome variables will be ranked by patients and surgeons to assess the relevance of possible endpoints from the patients' and surgeons' perspective. CONCLUSION: This is a randomized controlled observer and patient-blinded two-group parallel trial to answer the question if the transverse abdominal incision is equivalent to the vertical one due to the described endpoints.