الفهرس | Only 14 pages are availabe for public view |
Abstract Wound dehiscence might be connected procedure conclusion midsection stitches utilized. Various investigations have been directed assessing many conclusion methods stitch materials. There various examinations assessing different conclusion procedures stitch materials forestall wound dehiscence following crisis midline laparotomy. non-industrial nations, example, India, most patients worked crisis foster injury dehiscence, example, they have drawn out intraperitoneal sepsis hunger. The ongoing assessment conclusion midline entry point mass conclusion non-absorbable or gradually absorbable stitch. Pressure conveyed uniformly along length injury. They are normal difficulties midline conclusion following significant stomach medical procedure cause huge dreariness, weakened personal satisfaction. The ideal stomach conclusion ought be effective, give strength, act hindrance disease. It ought have low paces fascial dehiscence, disease, hernia development, stitch sinus arrangement, incisional torment. The standard procedure stomach conclusion ’mass conclusion’ (shutting all layers stomach wall, barring skin), normally nonabsorbable stitches, albeit ’slow-resorbing’ stitches, example, polydioxanone (PDS) are likewise generally utilized. In Smead-Jones technique conclusion pressure between two circles disseminated so that fascial edges are very much approximated. Initially depicted strategy intruded. Ceaseless strategy enjoys benefit being quicker has less gamble twisted dehiscence because dynamic circulationSummary and Conclusions expanded pressure postoperative period because see-saw impact. We proposed alteration unique Smead-Jones procedure by doing it nonstop way build advantages viewed this strategy quick, financially savvy, similarly powerful controlling injury contamination better than interfered method forestall wound dehiscence. Subsequently, point this study looking viability Modified Smead Jones procedure regular nonstop conclusion strategy crisis midline laparotomy rate twisted dehiscence between two methods. This randomized clinical review selected patients who went through crisis laparotomy through midline cut. Cases were then isolated into: • Bunch A: Linea alba shut Modified Smead Jones procedure utilizing polypropylene 1 number Far-close approach far method. • Bunch B: Linea alba shut traditional constant procedure utilizing polypropylene 1 number. All patients were exposed preoperative information taking including patient age, sex, past medical procedure, show analysis (clinically, lab, radiologically). Usable information, intra employable inconveniences, early postoperative development complexities were additionally recorded. Summary Our Results ✓ Clinical examination (MAP, HR, RR INR) insignificantly different between both groups.Summary and ✓ Laboratory investigations (Hb, PLT, RBCs WBCs) are insignificantly different between both groups. ✓ Indications laparotomy (pre-duodenal perforation, traumatic jejunal/ileal, colon perforation, appendicular perforation, ileal stricture/band, intestinal obstruction intussusception) are insignificantly different between both groups. ✓ Wound dehiscence insignificantly different between both groups. ✓ Hospital stay significantly lower group compared group B (P value <0.001).Summary and Conclusions Conclusions Emergency laparotomy requires special care wound closure. Modified Smead Jones technique better than conventional continuous technique management midline laparotomy closure respect wound dehiscence hospital stay. Recommendations ➢ Study should be performed large sample size obtain better results. ➢ Future studies are needed investigate risk wound infection longer follow up period assess incisional hernia. ➢ Smead-Jones techniques laparotomy closure had low incidence early complications. It superior other conventional methods closure.LimitationsLimitations ➢ Relatively small sample size single center study. ➢ Inadequate follow up: we could not assess incisional hernia. ➢ We did not assess other complications such wound infection. |