Comparison of Interrupted Suturing Versus Continuous Suturing in Laparotomy Wound Closed.

Comparison of Outcome of Emergency Laparotomy Wound Closed by Interrupted Suturing Versus Continuous Suturing.

Emergency laparotomy is associated with high morbidity, particularly due to wound dehiscence and infection. Choosing an optimal suturing technique can significantly impact patient outcomes, but data on the comparison of interrupted suturing with continuous suturing in emergency settings is limited. Therefore, the current study was planned, aiming to compare the outcome of emergency laparotomy wounds closed by interrupted suturing versus continuous suturing.

Interrupted suturing has been suggested to provide better tensile strength and allow for better healing by reducing tension across the wound. Several studies have reported a significantly lower incidence of wound dehiscence with interrupted suturing compared to continuous suturing. Additionally, interrupted suturing may lower the risk of wound infection by reducing bacterial migration along the suture line. Despite that, continuous suturing generally provides faster, more cost-effective wound closure with superior cosmetic outcomes and reduced short-term pain compared to interrupted sutures. If the study finds interrupted suturing to have superior outcomes, it could become the preferred method for emergency laparotomy closure, improving surgical success rates and patient recovery.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients of either gender
• Aged 18-60 years
• Undergoing emergency laparotomy

Exclusion Criteria:

• Unfit for surgery
• History of diabetes
• Immuno-compromised
• Pregnant/lactating mothers
• Malignancy
• Very low or very high body mass index (< 15kg/m2 or > 30kg/m2)