MedTrace Logo

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

NCT07601919 · Status: COMPLETED · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 184

Last updated 2026-05-22

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

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.

Conditions

  • Surgical Wound

Interventions

PROCEDURE

Interrupted Closure

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

PROCEDURE

Continuous Closure

Patients went through continuous closure with prolene 1.

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Muhammad Aamir Latif

    lead OTHER

Principal Investigators

  • Farhan Ahmed · Benazir Bhutto Hospital/Rawalpindi Medical University and Allied Hospitals, Rawalpindi

  • Usman Qureshi, FCPS · Holy Family Hospital/Rawalpindi Medical University and Allied Hospitals, Rawalpindi

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age
18 Years
Max Age
60 Years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
No

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2025-08-15
Primary Completion
2026-02-14
Completion
2026-02-14

Countries

  • Pakistan

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT07601919 on ClinicalTrials.gov