Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT07601919

Comparison of Interrupted Suturing Versus Continuous Suturing in Laparotomy Wound Closed.

Emergency laparotomy is associated with high morbidity, particularly due to wound dehiscence and infection. Choosing an optimal suturing technique can significantly impact patient outcomes, but data on the comparison of interrupted suturing with continuous suturing in emergency settings is limited. Therefore, the current study was planned, aiming to compare the outcome of emergency laparotomy wounds closed by interrupted suturing versus continuous suturing.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Surgical Wound Wounds and Injuries

Age range

18 year–60 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Benazir Bhutto Hospital/Rawalpindi Medical University and Allied Hospitals

Rawalpindi, Punjab Province, 46000, Pakistan

About this study

Interrupted suturing has been suggested to provide better tensile strength and allow for better healing by reducing tension across the wound. Several studies have reported a significantly lower incidence of wound dehiscence with interrupted suturing compared to continuous suturing. Additionally, interrupted suturing may lower the risk of wound infection by reducing bacterial migration along the suture line. Despite that, continuous suturing generally provides faster, more cost-effective wound closure with superior cosmetic outcomes and reduced short-term pain compared to interrupted sutures. If the study finds interrupted suturing to have superior outcomes, it could become the preferred method for emergency laparotomy closure, improving surgical success rates and patient recovery.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients of either gender
  • Aged 18-60 years
  • Undergoing emergency laparotomy

Exclusion criteria

  • Unfit for surgery
  • History of diabetes
  • Immuno-compromised
  • Pregnant/lactating mothers
  • Malignancy
  • Very low or very high body mass index (< 15kg/m2 or > 30kg/m2)

Treatment and study plan

Interrupted Closure

Procedure

Patients went through interrupted closure with Smead Jones technique using prolene 1.

Continuous Closure

Procedure

Patients went through continuous closure with prolene 1.

Primary outcomes

  1. Wound dehiscence

    Time frame: 10 days

    The frequency of patients who experienced spontaneous opening of the midline laparotomy sutures within 10 days of surgery was noted.

  2. Wound infection

    Time frame: 10 days

    The frequency of patients who showed the presence of pus or any discharge at the surgical wound site, which was accompanied by pain, fever, raised white blood cell count (> 11000), swelling, and erythema, was noted.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Muhammad Aamir Latif

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Comparison of Outcome of Emergency Laparotomy Wound Closed by Interrupted Suturing Versus Continuous Suturing.

Important dates

Study start
2025
Primary completion
2026
Study completion
2026
First posted
May 22, 2026
Registry last updated
May 22, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.