AI Article Synopsis

  • The text discusses a feasibility trial comparing the 'Hughes Repair' technique with standard mass closure in preventing incisional hernias after colorectal cancer surgery.
  • The trial involved 30 patients who were randomly assigned to one of the two surgical closure methods, assessing their recruitment and early safety outcomes.
  • Results showed no significant safety issues, indicating that a larger randomized controlled trial could be conducted to further evaluate the effectiveness of these techniques.

Article Abstract

Objectives: Incisional hernias are common complications of midline abdominal closure. The 'Hughes Repair' combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. There is evidence to suggest this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared Hughes repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation. This paper aims to test the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial of a comparison of abdominal wall closure methods following midline incisional surgery for colorectal cancer, in preparation to a definitive randomised controlled trial.

Design And Setting: A feasibility trial (with 1:1 randomisation) conducted perioperatively during colorectal cancer surgery.

Participants: Patients undergoing midline incisional surgery for resection of colorectal cancer.

Interventions: Comparison of two suture techniques (Hughes repair or standard mass closure) for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer.

Primary And Secondary Outcomes: A 30-patient feasibility trial assessed recruitment, randomisation, deliverability and early safety of the surgical techniques used.

Results: A total of 30 patients were randomised from 43 patients recruited and consented, over a 5-month period. 14 and 16 patients were randomised to arms A and B, respectively. There was one superficial surgical site infection (SSI) and two organ space SSIs reported in arm A, and two superficial SSIs and one complete wound dehiscence in arm B. There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions reported in either arm. Independent data monitoring committee found no early safety concerns.

Conclusions: The feasibility trial found no early safety concerns and demonstrated that the trial was acceptable to patients. Progression to the pilot and main phases of the trial has now commenced following approval by the independent data monitoring committee.

Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN 25616490.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5778308PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017235DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

feasibility trial
16
incisional hernias
12
randomised controlled
12
standard mass
12
mass closure
12
early safety
12
trial
9
wall closure
8
controlled trial
8
midline abdominal
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!