Continuous absorbable vs interrupted nonabsorbable XXXX . A prospective, randomized comparison.

@entity1 @entity4438 @entity28 @entity6886 @entity547
A prospective, randomized comparison of continuous, absorbable, No. 2, coated, @entity6886 suture (Dexon-Plus) vs interrupted, nonabsorbable, No. 28 monofilament stainless steel wire suture was performed in 105 @entity1 for midline @entity4438 following gastric surgery for morbid @entity28 . The preoperative weight, sex distribution, and type of operation were not significantly different between the two groups. No significant difference was found in the wound complication rate between the two closure methods (7/54 for wire and 8/51 for @entity6886 ). There were one dehiscence and five incisional @entity547 in the wire group and five @entity547 in the @entity6886 group. Continuous closure was accomplished in significantly less time (21 +/- 8 minutes) than interrupted closure (43 +/- 19 minutes). An additional 121 @entity1 underwent continuous No. 2 @entity6886 @entity4438 after the end of the randomized trial, with 13 wound complications, including ten incisional @entity547 . In conclusion, continuous, absorbable suture closure for laparotomy wounds is recommended for its economy of time and the lack of significant difference from an interrupted, nonabsorbable wound closure.
