WOUND DEHISCENCE;

Objectives: To compare the continuous and interrupted closure in term offrequency of wound dehiscence in emergency midline laparotomy incision. Study Design:Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Surgical Unit-I, Allied Hospital Faisalabad. Period: From15th March 2014 to 15th November 2014. Material and Methods: Two hundred patients werediagnosed clinically by taking thorough history and examinations were included. Fascial layerof wound of the patients sampled for group A was closed with interrupted mass closure withprolene no.1 whereas in group B was closed by continuous mass closure with prolene no1. All included patients were kept nothing by mouth. Resuscitation was done with, ringerslactate and blood transfusion if needed until adequate urine output (0.5 ml/kg/hr). Base lineinvestigations were done. After resuscitation and giving preoperative antibiotics, patients wereexplored through mid-line incision. Obvious source of contamination was dealt with accordingly.Variables wound were examined daily for any sign of dehiscence. Temperature pulse wasmeasured daily along with surgical site examination for any kind of discharge, stitches cutthrough and gut visibility through wound. In case of no complication patient was discharged ontenth postoperative day, which was the end point of study. Results: There were 61 (61%) malesand 39 (39%) females in group A, while in group B, 63 (63%) males and 37 (37%) females withmean ages of patients were 39.77+10.16 and 38.61+9.75 respectively. The wound dehiscencewere found 7 (7%) in Group-A and 18(18%) in Group-B while remaining 93 (93%) in Group-Aand 82 (82%) in Group-B had no morbidity statistically (p<0.01). Conclusion: It is concludedthat wound dehiscence is significantly higher in continuous closure as compare to interruptedclosure for emergency midline laparotomy incision for generalized peritonitis.