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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Sep 15;17(1):454.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1573-0.

Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART) - Abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

J Cornish  1 , R L Harries  1 , D Bosanquet  1 , B Rees  1 , J Ansell  1 , N Frewer  1 , P K Dhruva Rao  1 , C Parry  1 , R Ellis-Owen  1 , S M Phillips  1 , C Morris  1 , J Horwood  1 , M L Davies  1 , M M Davies  1 , R Hargest  1 , Z Davies  1 , J Hilton  2 , D Harris  3 , A Ben-Sassi  4 , R Rajagopal  5 , D Hanratty  6 , S Islam  7 , A Watkins  7 , N Bashir  7 , S Jones  8 , I R Russell  7 , J Torkington  9 ; HART Trial Management Group
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART) - Abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

J Cornish et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Incisional hernias are common complications of midline closure following abdominal surgery and cause significant morbidity, impaired quality of life and increased health care costs. The 'Hughes Repair' combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. This theoretically distributes the load along the incision length as well as across it. There is evidence to suggest that this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared the Hughes Repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation following a midline incision.

Methods/design: This is a 1:1 randomised controlled trial comparing two suture techniques for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer. Full ethical approval has been gained (Wales REC 3, MREC 12/WA/0374). Eight hundred patients will be randomised from approximately 20 general surgical units within the United Kingdom. Patients undergoing open or laparoscopic (more than a 5-cm midline incision) surgery for colorectal cancer, elective or emergency, are eligible. Patients under the age of 18 years, those having mesh inserted or undergoing musculofascial flap closure of the perineal defect in abdominoperineal wound closure, and those unable to give informed consent will be excluded. Patients will be randomised intraoperatively to either the Hughes Repair or standard mass closure. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year as assessed by standardised clinical examination. The secondary outcomes include quality of life patient-reported outcome measures, cost-utility analysis, incidence of complete abdominal wound dehiscence and C-POSSUM scores. The incidence of incisional hernia at 1 year, assessed by computerised tomography, will form a tertiary outcome.

Discussion: A feasibility phase has been completed. The results of the study will be used to inform current and future practice and potentially reduce the risk of incisional hernia formation following midline incisions.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN 25616490 . Registered on 1 January 2012.

Keywords: Abdominal closure; Hughes repair; Incisional hernia; Mass closure; Quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Diagram showing the Hughes closure method, using a combination of standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. When the sutures are pulled to close the defect, the sutures lie both across and along the incision
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART) study design
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Korenkov M, Paul A, Sauerland S, et al. Classification and surgical treatment of incisional hernia. Results of an experts’ meeting. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2001;386(1):65–73. doi: 10.1007/s004230000182. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F, et al. Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia. 2009;13(4):407–14. doi: 10.1007/s10029-009-0518-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. van Ramshorst GH, Eker HH, Hop WC, et al. Impact of incisional hernia on health-related quality of life and body image: a prospective cohort study. Am J Surg. 2012;204(2):144–50. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.01.012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, et al. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg. 2004;240(4):578–83. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sajid MS, Parampalli U, Baig MK, McFall MR. A systematic review on the effectiveness of slowly-absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for abdominal fascial closure following laparotomy. Int J Surg. 2011;9(8):615–25. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.09.006. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data