Smarter Decisions,
Better Care

UpToDate synthesizes the most recent medical information into evidence-based practical recommendations clinicians trust to make the right point-of-care decisions.

  • Rigorous editorial process: Evidence-based treatment recommendations
  • World-Renowned physician authors: over 5,100 physician authors and editors around the globe
  • Innovative technology: integrates into the workflow; access from EMRs

Choose from the list below to learn more about subscriptions for a:


Subscribers log in here


Complications of abdominal surgical incisions

INTRODUCTION

Wound complications are important causes of early and late postoperative morbidity following laparotomy. Surgical wounds in normal, healthy individuals heal through an orderly sequence of physiologic events that include inflammation, epithelialization, fibroplasia, and maturation. Mechanical failure or failure of wound healing at the surgical site can lead to disruption of the closure leading to seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence or hernia. Other complications include surgical site infection and nerve injury. This topic will review prevention and treatment of complications of abdominal surgical incisions.

Techniques for making and closing abdominal incisions to achieve an optimal outcome are discussed separately. (See "Principles of abdominal wall closure" and "Incisions for open abdominal surgery".)

HEMATOMA AND SEROMA

Hematoma and seroma are collections of blood and serum, respectively. Hematomas are more common than seromas, and usually result from failure of primary hemostasis or a bleeding diatheses (eg, anticoagulation). Hematomas and seromas can cause the incision to separate and predispose to wound infection since bacteria can gain access to deeper layers and multiply uninhibited in the stagnant fluid.

Clinical manifestations and diagnosis — Clinical manifestations usually appear a few days after surgery but can also be delayed. Collections of blood or serum in the wound may be asymptomatic or manifest as swelling, pain, and/or drainage. If the collection is infected, fever, erythema, wound induration and leukocytosis are also likely. (See 'Surgical site infection' below.)

The diagnosis can usually be made by inspection and palpation of the wound. If the examination is in question, ultrasound or computed tomography (CT) is useful for identifying a fluid collection, if present.

                           

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Sep 2014. | This topic last updated: Oct 1, 2014.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2014 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Dodson MK, Magann EF, Meeks GR. A randomized comparison of secondary closure and secondary intention in patients with superficial wound dehiscence. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80:321.
  2. Walters MD, Dombroski RA, Davidson SA, et al. Reclosure of disrupted abdominal incisions. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76:597.
  3. Al-Inany H, Youssef G, Abd ElMaguid A, et al. Value of subcutaneous drainage system in obese females undergoing cesarean section using pfannenstiel incision. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2002; 53:75.
  4. Fernandez R, Griffiths R, Ussia C. Water for wound cleansing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; :CD003861.
  5. Steed DL. Debridement. Am J Surg 2004; 187:71S.
  6. Ovington LG. Hanging wet-to-dry dressings out to dry. Home Healthc Nurse 2001; 19:477.
  7. Sharp CA, McLaws M. Wound dressings for surgical sites [protocol]. In: The Cochrane Library, 1, 2002. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CD003091.
  8. Vermeulen H, Ubbink D, Goossens A, et al. Dressings and topical agents for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; :CD003554.
  9. Cruse PJ, Foord R. The epidemiology of wound infection. A 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am 1980; 60:27.
  10. Ahmad NZ, Ahmed A. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of surgical scalpel or diathermy in making abdominal skin incisions. Ann Surg 2011; 253:8.
  11. Paral J, Ferko A, Varga J, et al. Comparison of sutured versus non-sutured subcutaneous fat tissue in abdominal surgery. A prospective randomized study. Eur Surg Res 2007; 39:350.
  12. Del Valle GO, Combs P, Qualls C, Curet LB. Does closure of Camper fascia reduce the incidence of post-cesarean superficial wound disruption? Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80:1013.
  13. Naumann RW, Hauth JC, Owen J, et al. Subcutaneous tissue approximation in relation to wound disruption after cesarean delivery in obese women. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85:412.
  14. Kore S, Vyavaharkar M, Akolekar R, et al. Comparison of closure of subcutaneous tissue versus non-closure in relation to wound disruption after abdominal hysterectomy in obese patients. J Postgrad Med 2000; 46:26.
  15. Loudon MA, Barua JM. A novel and convenient method of delayed primary skin closure for grossly contaminated abdominal wounds. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1994; 39:47.
  16. Cohn SM, Giannotti G, Ong AW, et al. Prospective randomized trial of two wound management strategies for dirty abdominal wounds. Ann Surg 2001; 233:409.
  17. Kurz A, Sessler DI, Lenhardt R. Perioperative normothermia to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection and shorten hospitalization. Study of Wound Infection and Temperature Group. N Engl J Med 1996; 334:1209.
  18. Pryor KO, Fahey TJ 3rd, Lien CA, Goldstein PA. Surgical site infection and the routine use of perioperative hyperoxia in a general surgical population: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004; 291:79.
  19. Carlson MA. Acute wound failure. Surg Clin North Am 1997; 77:607.
  20. Baggish MS, Lee WK. Abdominal wound disruption. Obstet Gynecol 1975; 46:530.
  21. Pratt J. Wound healing: evisceration. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973; 132:165.
  22. van Ramshorst GH, Nieuwenhuizen J, Hop WC, et al. Abdominal wound dehiscence in adults: development and validation of a risk model. World J Surg 2010; 34:20.
  23. Pavlidis TE, Galatianos IN, Papaziogas BT, et al. Complete dehiscence of the abdominal wound and incriminating factors. Eur J Surg 2001; 167:351.
  24. Sloan GA. A new upper abdominal incision. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1927; 45:678.
  25. Ellis H, Bucknall TE, Cox PJ. Abdominal incisions and their closure. Curr Probl Surg 1985; 22:1.
  26. Greenall MJ, Evans M, Pollock AV. Midline or transverse laparotomy? A random controlled clinical trial. Part I: Influence on healing. Br J Surg 1980; 67:188.
  27. Ellis H, Coleridge-Smith PD, Joyce AD. Abdominal incisions--vertical or transverse? Postgrad Med J 1984; 60:407.
  28. Sanders RJ, DiClementi D. Principles of abdominal wound closure. II. Prevention of wound dehiscence. Arch Surg 1977; 112:1188.
  29. Greenburg AG, Saik RP, Peskin GW. Wound dehiscence. Pathophysiology and prevention. Arch Surg 1979; 114:143.
  30. Bartlett LC. Pressure necrosis is the primary cause of wound dehiscence. Can J Surg 1985; 28:27.
  31. Herrmann JB. Changes in tensile strength and knot security of surgical sutures in vivo. Arch Surg 1973; 106:707.
  32. Pollock AV. Laparotomy. J R Soc Med 1981; 74:480.
  33. Millbourn D, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA. Effect of stitch length on wound complications after closure of midline incisions: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg 2009; 144:1056.
  34. Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, et al. Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2010; 251:843.
  35. PAREIRA MD, SERKES KD. Prediction of wound disruption by use of the healing ridge. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1962; 115:72.
  36. Ceydeli A, Rucinski J, Wise L. Finding the best abdominal closure: an evidence-based review of the literature. Curr Surg 2005; 62:220.
  37. Hubbard TB Jr, Rever WB Jr. Retention sutures in the closure of abdominal incisions. Am J Surg 1972; 124:378.
  38. Rink AD, Goldschmidt D, Dietrich J, et al. Negative side-effects of retention sutures for abdominal wound closure. A prospective randomised study. Eur J Surg 2000; 166:932.
  39. Gerten KA, Richter HE, Wheeler TL 2nd, et al. Intraabdominal pressure changes associated with lifting: implications for postoperative activity restrictions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198:306.e1.
  40. Weir LF, Nygaard IE, Wilken J, et al. Postoperative activity restrictions: any evidence? Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:305.
  41. Greer BE, Cain JM, Figge DC, et al. Supraumbilical upper abdominal midline incision for pelvic surgery in the morbidly obese patient. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76:471.
  42. Krebs HB, Helmkamp BF. Transverse periumbilical incision in the massively obese patient. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 63:241.
  43. Gallup DG. Modifications of celiotomy techniques to decrease morbidity in obese gynecologic patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 150:171.
  44. Morrow CP, Hernandez WL, Townsend DE, Disaia PJ. Pelvic celiotomy in the obese patient. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1977; 127:335.
  45. TELOH HA, MASON ML, WHEELOCK MC. A histopathologic study of radiation injuries of the skin. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1950; 90:335.
  46. Hoffman MS, Villa A, Roberts WS, et al. Mass closure of the abdominal wound with delayed absorbable suture in surgery for gynecologic cancer. J Reprod Med 1991; 36:356.