Monofilament versus multifilament absorbable sutures for abdominal closure

Area of Science:

• Surgical Innovation
• Wound Healing Research
• Absorbable Sutures

Background:

• Abdominal closure techniques impact patient outcomes.
• Choosing between monofilament and multifilament absorbable sutures is critical.
• Optimizing surgical efficiency in abdominal closure is a key concern.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare monofilament continuous absorbable sutures with multifilament interrupted absorbable sutures for abdominal incision closure.
• To evaluate the incidence of incisional hernia, sinus formation, and other wound-healing complications.
• To assess the time efficiency of different suturing methods.

Main Methods:

• Randomized controlled trial involving 988 patients undergoing abdominal closure.
• Patients randomized to receive either monofilament polyglyconate (Maxon) or multifilament polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) sutures.
• Follow-up at 1 year to assess incisional hernia and wound-healing problems.

Main Results:

• No significant difference in incisional hernia rates (8% vs. 6%) between monofilament and multifilament sutures.
• Wound dehiscence occurred in 1% of patients in both groups.
• Monofilament continuous sutures were significantly faster to apply (7.1 min vs. 8.7 min).

Conclusions:

• Monofilament continuous absorbable sutures provide a quicker method for abdominal closure compared to multifilament interrupted sutures.
• This faster technique does not elevate the risk of incisional hernia or wound dehiscence.
• Monofilament continuous sutures represent an efficient and safe option for abdominal incision closure.