Surgical WoundNCT07601919
Comparison of Interrupted Suturing Versus Continuous Suturing in Laparotomy Wound Closed.
A study testing Interrupted Closure and Continuous Closure in people with Surgical Wound, run by Muhammad Aamir Latif at 1 site in Pakistan.
Trial 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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 60 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Surgical Wound
- What is being tested?
- Interrupted Closure and Continuous Closure
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 184 participants
- Where
- 1 sitePakistan
- Study dates
- 15 Aug 2025to 14 Feb 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 60 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients of either gender
- Aged 18-60 years
- Undergoing emergency laparotomy
Who cannot join
- Unfit for surgery
- History of diabetes
- Immuno-compromised
- Pregnant/lactating mothers
- Malignancy
- Very low or very high body mass index (< 15kg/m2 or > 30kg/m2)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Pakistan1 site
Benazir Bhutto Hospital/Rawalpindi Medical University and Allied Hospitals
Rawalpindi, Punjab Province, 46000
About this study
Official title: Comparison of Outcome of Emergency Laparotomy Wound Closed by Interrupted Suturing Versus Continuous Suturing.
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.
Read the detailed description
Interrupted suturing has been suggested to provide better tensile strength and allow for better healing by reducing tension across the wound. Several studies have reported a significantly lower incidence of wound dehiscence with interrupted suturing compared to continuous suturing. Additionally, interrupted suturing may lower the risk of wound infection by reducing bacterial migration along the suture line. Despite that, continuous suturing generally provides faster, more cost-effective wound closure with superior cosmetic outcomes and reduced short-term pain compared to interrupted sutures. If the study finds interrupted suturing to have superior outcomes, it could become the preferred method for emergency laparotomy closure, improving surgical success rates and patient recovery.
- Conditions
- Surgical Wound
- Being tested
- Interrupted Closure, Continuous Closure
- Medical subject headings
- Surgical Wound
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Interrupted ClosureProcedure or surgery
Patients went through interrupted closure with Smead Jones technique using prolene 1.
Continuous ClosureProcedure or surgery
Patients went through continuous closure with prolene 1.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group-A | Experimental | Patients went through interrupted closure with Smead Jones technique using prolene 1. Receives: Procedure: Interrupted Closure |
| Group-B | Experimental | Patients went through continuous closure with prolene 1. Receives: Procedure: Continuous Closure |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Wound dehiscence
The frequency of patients who experienced spontaneous opening of the midline laparotomy sutures within 10 days of surgery was noted.
Measured: 10 days
Wound infection
The frequency of patients who showed the presence of pus or any discharge at the surgical wound site, which was accompanied by pain, fever, raised white blood cell count (> 11000), swelling, and erythema, was noted.
Measured: 10 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 May 2026
- Study start15 Aug 2025
- Primary completion14 Feb 2026
- Study completion14 Feb 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Surgical WoundStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 184 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Muhammad Aamir Latif
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Muhammad Aamir Latif, RESnTEC, Institute of Research
- Investigators
- Farhan Ahmed, Principal investigator, Benazir Bhutto Hospital/Rawalpindi Medical University and Allied Hospitals, RawalpindiUsman Qureshi, FCPS, Study director, Holy Family Hospital/Rawalpindi Medical University and Allied Hospitals, Rawalpindi
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07601919
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Dr-Farhan-Rawalpindi
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 15 May 2026
- Last updated
- 22 May 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Data can be shared on a reasonable request.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 May 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of Outcome of Emergency Laparotomy Wound Closed by Interrupted Suturing Versus Continuous Suturing.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07601919
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Dr-Farhan-Rawalpindi
- Conditions
- Surgical Wound
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 184 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Muhammad Aamir LatifUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 15 Aug 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 14 Feb 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 14 Feb 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 22 May 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Detailed description
Interrupted suturing has been suggested to provide better tensile strength and allow for better healing by reducing tension across the wound. Several studies have reported a significantly lower incidence of wound dehiscence with interrupted suturing compared to continuous suturing. Additionally, interrupted suturing may lower the risk of wound infection by reducing bacterial migration along the suture line. Despite that, continuous suturing generally provides faster, more cost-effective wound closure with superior cosmetic outcomes and reduced short-term pain compared to interrupted sutures. If the study finds interrupted suturing to have superior outcomes, it could become the preferred method for emergency laparotomy closure, improving surgical success rates and patient recovery.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group-A | Experimental | Procedure: Interrupted ClosurePatients went through interrupted closure with Smead Jones technique using prolene 1. |
| Group-B | Experimental | Procedure: Continuous ClosurePatients went through continuous closure with prolene 1. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 60 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients of either gender
- Aged 18-60 years
- Undergoing emergency laparotomy
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Unfit for surgery
- History of diabetes
- Immuno-compromised
- Pregnant/lactating mothers
- Malignancy
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Interrupted ClosurePatients went through interrupted closure with Smead Jones technique using prolene 1. | Procedure or surgery | Group-A |
| Continuous ClosurePatients went through continuous closure with prolene 1. | Procedure or surgery | Group-B |
Primary outcome
Wound dehiscence
Time frame: 10 days
The frequency of patients who experienced spontaneous opening of the midline laparotomy sutures within 10 days of surgery was noted.
Wound infection
Time frame: 10 days
The frequency of patients who showed the presence of pus or any discharge at the surgical wound site, which was accompanied by pain, fever, raised white blood cell count (> 11000), swelling, and erythema, was noted.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 May 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Data can be shared on a reasonable request.
Related trials for Surgical Wound
Not yet recruiting
Safety Study of Microlyte DualGuard
Wound Closure, Wound Care
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Roxadustat and Myocardial Injury After Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
Coronary Artery Disease, Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
Recruiting
SIRI Levels Following PENG Block in Pediatric Hip Surgery
Hip Dysplasia
RecruitingPhase 4
PENG With LFCB vs. ESP Blocks for Pediatric Hip Surgery
Hip Disease, Hip Dysplasia
Not yet recruiting
Biodegradable Magnesium Screws for Unstable Ankle Fracture Surgery
Ankle Fractures, Syndesmotic Injury
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Farhan Ahmed principal investigator
Benazir Bhutto Hospital/Rawalpindi Medical University and Allied Hospitals, Rawalpindi
Usman Qureshi, FCPS study director
Holy Family Hospital/Rawalpindi Medical University and Allied Hospitals, Rawalpindi
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Interrupted Closure and Continuous Closure in people with Surgical Wound, run by Muhammad Aamir Latif at 1 site in Pakistan.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 May 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Pakistan. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Wound dehiscence (time frame: 10 days). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 May 2026.