|
Home
Search
Study Topics
Glossary
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sponsored by: |
Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, India |
|---|---|
| Information provided by: | Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, India |
| ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT00514566 |
Purpose
Within the last decade the customary trend of using non absorbable sutures has changed, with numerous studies and meta-analyses advocating the use of slowly absorbable sutures, claiming comparable wound strength with significantly lower incidence of wound complications. It was the objective of this randomized clinical trial to compare two universally accepted suture materials, the non-absorbable Nylon and the slowly absorbable Polydioxanone for midline abdominal closure in the Indian context.
| Condition | Intervention |
|---|---|
|
Laparotomy |
Device: Suture for midline abdominal closure |
| Study Type: | Interventional |
| Study Design: | Treatment, Randomized, Single Blind (Subject), Active Control, Parallel Assignment, Safety/Efficacy Study |
| Official Title: | Is Polydioxanone 'THE' Suture of Choice for Midline Abdominal Closure? Results of a Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial |
| Enrollment: | 64 |
| Study Start Date: | October 2004 |
| Study Completion Date: | April 2006 |
| Arms | Assigned Interventions |
|---|---|
|
1: Active Comparator
Surgical Patient undergoing midline laparotomy closure
|
Device: Suture for midline abdominal closure
closure with Polyamide or Polydioxanone
|
64 patients undergoing midline laparotomy were allocated, using block randomization, to mass closure of the abdominal wall with continuous polyamide (34 patients) or continuous polydioxanone (30 patients).
There was an alarmingly higher incidence of wound dehiscence in the PDS group requiring secondary suturing (Nylon 0; PDS 5). Mid-way through the trial, an interim analysis was performed which revealed an unacceptably high incidence of wound dehiscence in the PDS group. This necessitated a premature curtailment of the study. There was, however, a statistically significantly higher incidence of scar pain in the Nylon group (Nylon 9; PDS 1).
There is a need for a study with larger series, and PDS as a choice of suture for midline wound closure cannot be recommended.
Eligibility| Ages Eligible for Study: | 12 Years and older |
| Genders Eligible for Study: | Both |
| Accepts Healthy Volunteers: | No |
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Contacts and Locations| India, Punjab | |
| Christian Medical College and Hospital | |
| Ludhiana, Punjab, India, 141008 | |
| Study Chair: | Rajeev Kapoor, MS(Gen Surg) | Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, India |
More Information
| Study ID Numbers: | ChristianMCLudhiana |
| Study First Received: | August 8, 2007 |
| Last Updated: | August 8, 2007 |
| ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT00514566 History of Changes |
| Health Authority: | India: Institutional Review Board |
|
Polyamide Polydioxanone Midline Abdominal Closure |