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
. 2017 Dec 19;7(12):e017235.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017235.

Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART)-abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: feasibility trial for a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Rhiannon L Harries  1   2 , Julie Cornish  2   3 , David Bosanquet  1   2 , Buddug Rees  1 , James Horwood  1 , Saiful Islam  4 , Nadim Bashir  4 , Alan Watkins  4 , Ian T Russell  4 , Jared Torkington  1 ; HART Trial Management Group
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART)-abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: feasibility trial for a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Rhiannon L Harries et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: Incisional hernias are common complications of midline abdominal closure. The 'Hughes Repair' combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. There is evidence to suggest this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared Hughes repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation. This paper aims to test the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial of a comparison of abdominal wall closure methods following midline incisional surgery for colorectal cancer, in preparation to a definitive randomised controlled trial.

Design and setting: A feasibility trial (with 1:1 randomisation) conducted perioperatively during colorectal cancer surgery.

Participants: Patients undergoing midline incisional surgery for resection of colorectal cancer.

Interventions: Comparison of two suture techniques (Hughes repair or standard mass closure) for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer.

Primary and secondary outcomes: A 30-patient feasibility trial assessed recruitment, randomisation, deliverability and early safety of the surgical techniques used.

Results: A total of 30 patients were randomised from 43 patients recruited and consented, over a 5-month period. 14 and 16 patients were randomised to arms A and B, respectively. There was one superficial surgical site infection (SSI) and two organ space SSIs reported in arm A, and two superficial SSIs and one complete wound dehiscence in arm B. There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions reported in either arm. Independent data monitoring committee found no early safety concerns.

Conclusions: The feasibility trial found no early safety concerns and demonstrated that the trial was acceptable to patients. Progression to the pilot and main phases of the trial has now commenced following approval by the independent data monitoring committee.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN 25616490.

Keywords: abdominal closure; colorectal cancer; hughes repair; incisional hernia; mass closure; randomised controlled trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 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.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial study design.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bosanquet DC, Ansell J, Abdelrahman T, et al. Systematic review and meta-regression of factors affecting midline incisional hernia rates: analysis of 14,618 patients. PLoS One 2015;10:e0138745 10.1371/journal.pone.0138745 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pereira JA, Pera M, Grande L. [Incidence of incisional hernia after open and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection]. Cir Esp 2013;91:44–9. 10.1016/j.ciresp.2012.05.004 - DOI - 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;204:144–50. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.01.012 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, et al. Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2010;251:843–56. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d973e4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. van ’t Riet M, Steyerberg EW, Nellensteyn J, et al. Meta-analysis of techniques for closure of midline abdominal incisions. Br J Surg 2002;89:1350–6. 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02258.x - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources