Suture techniques and materials for fascial closure of abdominal wall incisions: how do they compare in a systematic review and meta-analysis?

Abstract Background The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate closure of laparotomy using different suture-materials and techniques. Methods A literature search was conducted till 11 October 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCSs) on laparotomy closure were included. The study quality was evaluated using the ROB2 and ROBINS-I checklists. The primary outcome was incisional hernia (IH), and secondary outcomes were fascial dehiscence (FD), combined-FD+IH, and surgical site infection (SSI). Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. Results A total of 73 RCTs and 26 PCSs were included. Slowly-absorbable suture materials were associated with a lower risk of IH (OR: 0.64; 95%CI: 0.47–0.86) and combined-FD+IH (OR: 0.76; 95%CI: 0.58–0.99) when compared to fast-absorbable sutures (5 studies, 2,262 patients). Non-absorbable suture material was not superior to any other suture material. Continuous-suturing was not superior to interrupted-suturing, neither was mass-closure superior to layered-closure for any of the outcomes. Small-bites technique with a slowly-resorbable suture in the elective-setting resulted in significantly less IHs (OR 0.42; 95%CI: 0.28–0.62), combined-FD+IH (OR 0.39; 95%CI: 0.22–0.72) and SSIs (OR 0.67; 95%CI: 0.52–0.83) compared to a large-bites technique (8 studies, 1,168 patients). In the emergency setting, the continuous Smead-Jones suturing significantly reduced the risks of IH (OR 0.22; 95%CI: 0.08–0.59), FD (OR 0.20; 95%CI: 0.11–0.34), combined-FD+IH (OR 0.08; 95%CI: 0.03–0.19), and SSI (OR 0.45; 95%CI: 0.26–0.79) compared to continuous-suturing (6 studies, 265 patients). Conclusions Closure of laparotomies using the small-bites technique is superior to large-bites techniques. In the emergency setting, the Smead-Jones technique seems a valid alternative.