Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1992 Mar;74(2):134-7.

The influence of suturing and sepsis on the development of postoperative peritoneal adhesions

Affiliations
Comparative Study

The influence of suturing and sepsis on the development of postoperative peritoneal adhesions

D P O'Leary et al. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1992 Mar.

Abstract

Postoperative peritoneal adhesions are a major cause of morbidity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential contributions of suturing and sepsis to their formation in animals undergoing laparotomy. Suturing the peritoneum with plain catgut was associated with a high incidence of adhesions to the wound at 8 days (11/15), but this was significantly less at 25 days (5/15, P less than 0.04). Use of monofilament nylon, or non-suture, were each associated with a low incidence of adhesions. Wound strength was significantly greater at 25 days than at 8 days (P less than 0.0005), but did not differ between groups. In a separate experiment, bacterial infection, even in the absence of a particulate carrier, proved to be a potent cause of postoperative peritoneal adhesions (8/9, P = 0.02) compared with uninfected controls (3/10). Suturing the peritoneum in the presence of infection caused an especially high incidence of adhesions to the wound (8/9, P = 0.004 vs 2/10 unsutured). It is concluded that the lowest incidence of adhesions to the wound is likely to be obtained, both in uninfected and in infected cases, if the peritoneum is not sutured during closure of abdominal wounds, and that such an approach does not compromise wound strength.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Br J Surg. 1983 Mar;70(3):158-60 - PubMed
    1. Am J Surg. 1979 May;137(5):650-2 - PubMed
    1. Ann Surg. 1978 Feb;187(2):189-93 - PubMed
    1. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1990 Jan;72(1):60-3 - PubMed
    1. Br J Surg. 1970 Sep;57(9):664-7 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources