|
|
Non-closure of the peritoneum and subcutaneous
tissue at radical hysterectomy: A randomized controlled trial |
Zhou-Fang XIONG MD,Wei-Hong DONG MD,Ze-Hua WANG MD, |
Department of Obstetrics
and Gynecology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University
of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China; |
|
|
Abstract We conducted a trial to assess the influence of closure or nonclosure of the peritoneum and subcutaneous tissue on the clinical outcomes of cervical cancer patients who underwent radical hysterectomy with lower abdominal cross incision. This randomized controlled trial was performed on 158 cervical cancer patients in our hospital between January 2002 and June 2004. Eighty-two patients were allocated to the “closure” group and 76 patients to the “nonclosure” group. Results showed that non-closure of the peritoneum and subcutaneous tissue could shorten operation time and febrile duration, reduce antibiotics requirement, increase the volume of drainage and decrease the incidence of liquefaction of subcutaneous fat (P<0.05). There was no difference in blood loss, postoperative complications, bowel function restoration and post-operative stay between the two groups (P>0.05). Our study revealed that closure of the peritoneum and subcutaneous tissue provides no immediate postoperative benefits while unnecessarily lengthening surgical time and anesthesia exposure. The practice of closure of the peritoneum and subcutaneous tissue at radical hysterectomy should be questioned.
|
Keywords
cervical cancer
radical surgery
peritoneum
subcutaneous tissue
|
Issue Date: 05 March 2010
|
|
|
Cheong Y C, Bajekal N, Li T C. Peritoneal closure—toclose or not to close. Human Reproduction, 2001, 16(8): 1548―1552
doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.8.1548
|
|
Berghella V, Baxter J K, Chauhan S P. Evidence-based surgery forcesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2005, 193(5): 1607―1617
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.03.063
|
|
Huchon C, Raiffort C, Chis C, Messaoudi F, Jacquemot M C, Panel P. Caesarean section: closureor non-closure of peritoneum? A randomized trial of postoperativemorbidity. Gynecol Obstet Fertil, 2005, 33(10): 745―974
doi: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2005.08.001
|
|
Chelmow D, Huang E, Strohbehn K. Closure of the subcutaneous dead spaceand wound disruption after cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2002, 11(6): 403―408
|
|
Boesch C E, Umek W. Effects ofwound closure on wound healing in gynecologic surgery: a systematicliterature review. J Reprod Med, 2009, 54(3): 139―144
|
|
Wiseman D M. Disorders of adhesions or adhesion-related disorder:monolithic entities or part of something bigger--CAPPS? Semin Reprod Med, 2008, 26(4): 356―368
doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1082394
|
|
Alpay Z, Saed G M, Diamond M P. Postoperative adhesions: from formationto prevention. Semin Reprod Med, 2008, 26(4): 313―321
doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1082389
|
|
Hamel K J. Incidence of adhesions at repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2007, 196(5): e31―32
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.09.011
|
|
Myers S A, Bennett T L. Incidence of significant adhesions at repeat cesarean section andthe relationship to method of prior peritoneal closure. J Reprod Med, 2005, 50(9): 659―662
|
|
Yiyang Z, Qunxi C, Weiling W. Closure vs. nonclosure of the peritoneumat cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2006, 94(2): 103―107
doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.05.003
|
|
Irion O, Luzuy F, Beguin F. Nonclosure of the visceral and parietalperitoneum at caesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 1996, 103(7): 690―694
|
|
Tulandi T, Al-Jaroudi D. Nonclosureof peritoneum: a reappraisal. Am J ObstetGynecol, 2003, 189(2): 609―612
doi: 10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00299-0
|
|
Tulandi T, Hum H S, Gelfand M M. Closure of laparotomy incisions withor without peritoneal suturing and second-look laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1988, 158(3 Pt 1): 536―537
|
|
Hammoud A, Gago L A, Diamond M P. Adhesions in patients with chronic pelvicpain: a role for adhesiolysis? Fertil Steril, 2004, 82(6): 1483―1491
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.07.948
|
|
Keltz M D, Gera P S, Olive D L. Prospective randomized trial of right-sidedparacolic adhesiolysis for chronic pelvic pain. JSLS, 2006, 10(4): 443―446
|
|
Roset E, Boulvain M, Irion O. Nonclosure of the peritoneumduring caesarean section: long-term follow-up of a randomized controlledtrial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2003, 108(1): 40―44
doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00366-4
|
|
Demirel Y, Gursoy S, Duran B, Erden O, Cetin M, Balta O, Cetin A. Closureor nonclosure of the peritoneum at gynecological operations. Effecton postoperative pain. Saudi Med J, 2005, 26(6): 964―968
|
|
Shahin A Y, Osman A M. Parietalperitoneal closure and persistent postcesarean pain. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2009, 104(2): 135―139
doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.09.012
|
|
Woyton J, Florjanski J, Zimmer M, Tomiałowicz M. Non-closure of the visceral peritoneumduring abdominal gynecological surgery. Ginekol Pol, 2001, 72(8): 652―657
|
|
Bach M, Plante M, Kirschnick L S, Edelweiss M I. Evaluation of morbidity of suction drains after retroperitoneallymphadenectomy in gynecological tumors: a systematic literature review. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2009, 19(2): 202―207
|
|
Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Zanaboni F, Scarabelli C, Beretta P, Donadello N. Nonclosure of peritoneumat radical abdominal hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection: a randomizedstudy. Obstet Gynecol, 1997, 90(4): 622―627
doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00359-1
|
|
Hellums E K, Lin M G, Ramsey P S. Prophylactic subcutaneous drainage forprevention of wound complications after cesarean delivery--a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2007, 197(3): 229―235
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.05.023
|
|
Gupta H, Srivastava A, Menon G R, Agrawal C S, Chumber S, Kumar S. Comparison of interruptedversus continuous closure in abdominal wound repair: a meta-analysisof 23 trials. Asian J Surg, 2008, 31(3): 104―114
|
|
Guvenal T, Duran B, Demirkoprulu N, Cetin M. Prevention of superficial wound disruption in Pfannenstielincisions by using a subcutaneous drain. Int J Gynecol Obstet, 2002, 77(2): 151―153
doi: 10.1016/S0020-7292(02)00019-X
|
|
Anderson E R, Gates S. Techniquesand materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2004, 8(4): CD004663
|
|
Chelmow D, Rodriguez E J, Sabatini M M. Suture closure of subcutaneousfat and wound disruption after cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol, 2004, 103(5 Pt 1): 974―980
|
|
Wendel R, John C, John O, Hodgkins P M, Lincoln T. Subcutaneous tissue approximationin relation to wound disruption after cesarean delivery in obese women. Obstet Gynecol, 1995, 85(3): 412―416
doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(94)00427-F
|
|
Stephen T, Carlos L, David E, Verdeja A. Wound infection after cesarean: effect of subcutaneoustissue thickness. Obstet Gynecol, 2000, 95(t Pt 1): 923―926
|
|
Bamigboye A A, Hofmeyr G J. Non-closure of peritoneal surfaces at caesarean section--a systematicreview. S Afr Med J, 2005, 95(2): 123―126
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
|
Shared |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussed |
|
|
|
|