RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Midline versus transverse incision in major abdominal surgery: a randomized, double-blind equivalence trial (POVATI: ISRCTN60734227).

OBJECTIVE: There are 2 main types of access for patients requiring major open, elective abdominal surgery: the midline or the transverse approach. The aim of this study is to compare both approaches by focusing on postoperative pain, complications, and frequency of incisional hernias.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: A recent Cochrane review suggested that transverse incisions may be less painful but incisional hernia rates do not differ.

METHODS: Randomized, patient- and observer-blinded, monocentric, equivalence clinical trial. Patients were scheduled for elective primary abdominal incisions. Composite primary end point measured 48 hours after surgery was the total amount of analgesics (piritramide) required in the last 24 hours and pain (Visual Analogue Scale). Secondary end points were early-onset and late complications. This study is registered in the ISRCTN registry and has the ID number ISRCTN60734227.

RESULTS: Two hundred patients (101 midline and 99 transverse) were randomized. Both incision types resulted in similar amounts of required analgesics (95% confidence interval [-0.38; -0.33] was included in the equivalence level). For the Visual Analogue Scale, both the 95% and 90% CI (0-10) were neither within the equivalence levels nor were their differences significant at the 5% level. No relevant differences between midline and transverse incisions were observed for 30-day mortality (2 vs. 2, P = 0.99), mortality after one year (15 vs. 23, P = 0.15), pulmonary complications (13 vs. 17, P = 0.43), median length of hospital stay (11 vs. 12 days, P = 0.08), median time to tolerance of solid food (12 vs. 14 days, P = 0.30), and incisional hernias after one year (13 vs. 8, P = 0.48). More wound infections occurred in the transverse group (15 vs. 5, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION: The decision about the incision should be driven by surgeon preference with respect to the patient's disease and anatomy.

Full text links

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Group 7SearchHeart failure treatmentPapersTopicsCollectionsEffects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure Importance: Only 1 class of glucose-lowering agents-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors-has been reported to decrease the risk of cardiovascular events primarily by reducingSeptember 1, 2017: JAMA CardiologyAssociations of albuminuria in patients with chronic heart failure: findings in the ALiskiren Observation of heart Failure Treatment study.CONCLUSIONS: Increased UACR is common in patients with heart failure, including non-diabetics. Urinary albumin creatininineJul, 2011: European Journal of Heart FailureRandomized Controlled TrialEffects of Liraglutide on Clinical Stability Among Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Review

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app