Scholarlink

<p>Midline laparotomy incision is mostly used in emergent surgery, especially in hemodynamic instability patients. We aim to compare the Modified Smead–Jones (MSJ) and Smead–Jones (SJ) sutures against conventional continuous suture in midline laparotomy closure. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovoid were searched. We utilized Revman 5.4.1 for statistical analysis. Five studies involving 403 patients were included. Compared to continuous sutures, MSJ showed a significant reduction in wound dehiscence, wound infection, and hospital stay (RR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.14–0.59], p = 0.0006), (RR = 0.41, 95% CI [0.26–0.65], p = 0.0002), and (MD = –&#xa0;4.50, 95% CI [–&#xa0;5.43 to –&#xa0;3.57], p = 0.00001). Conversely, the SJ subgroup showed no statistically significant difference in wound dehiscence, wound infection, and hospital stay. Also, both techniques, MSJ and SJ, showed no significant difference in incisional hernia risk&#xa0;(RR = 0.17, 95% CI [0.02–1.33], p = 0.09) and (RR = 5.16, 95% CI [0. 26–103.27], p = 0.28), respectively. MSJ follows the same far-near-near-far pattern as SJ but is applied continuously rather than interrupted.&#xa0;The MSJ suture technique might be promising in reducing wound dehiscence, infection, and hospital stay compared to conventional continuous closure. However, future large-scale RCTs with standardized methodologies and extended follow-up are essential to determine whether MSJ should be established as the preferred technique for midline laparotomy closure.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Modified Smead–Jones suture for closure of emergency midline laparotomy incision: systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月29日

查看全文
  • Mahmoud Diaa Hindawi,
  • Ruaa Mustafa Qafesha,
  • Ahmed Hamdy G. Ali,
  • Hazim Alkousheh,
  • Hatem Eldeeb,
  • Haitham Salem,
  • Abd-Elfattah Kalmoush,
  • Amr Elrosasy

摘要

Midline laparotomy incision is mostly used in emergent surgery, especially in hemodynamic instability patients. We aim to compare the Modified Smead–Jones (MSJ) and Smead–Jones (SJ) sutures against conventional continuous suture in midline laparotomy closure. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovoid were searched. We utilized Revman 5.4.1 for statistical analysis. Five studies involving 403 patients were included. Compared to continuous sutures, MSJ showed a significant reduction in wound dehiscence, wound infection, and hospital stay (RR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.14–0.59], p = 0.0006), (RR = 0.41, 95% CI [0.26–0.65], p = 0.0002), and (MD = – 4.50, 95% CI [– 5.43 to – 3.57], p = 0.00001). Conversely, the SJ subgroup showed no statistically significant difference in wound dehiscence, wound infection, and hospital stay. Also, both techniques, MSJ and SJ, showed no significant difference in incisional hernia risk (RR = 0.17, 95% CI [0.02–1.33], p = 0.09) and (RR = 5.16, 95% CI [0. 26–103.27], p = 0.28), respectively. MSJ follows the same far-near-near-far pattern as SJ but is applied continuously rather than interrupted. The MSJ suture technique might be promising in reducing wound dehiscence, infection, and hospital stay compared to conventional continuous closure. However, future large-scale RCTs with standardized methodologies and extended follow-up are essential to determine whether MSJ should be established as the preferred technique for midline laparotomy closure.