Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Principles of abdominal wall closure

Jason S Mizell, MD, FACS
Section Editor
Hilary Sanfey, MD
Deputy Editor
Wenliang Chen, MD, PhD


The ideal abdominal wound closure provides strength and a barrier to infection. In addition, the closure should be efficient, performed without tension or ischemia, comfortable for the patient, and aesthetic.

Closure of abdominal incisions will be reviewed here. Incisions for opening the abdomen, wound healing, and wound complications are discussed separately. (See "Incisions for open abdominal surgery" and "Complications of abdominal surgical incisions".)


Sutures — Wounds have less than 5 percent of normal tissue strength during the first postoperative week, thus wound security is dependent solely upon the suture closure. (See "Closure of minor skin wounds with sutures" and "Closure of minor skin wounds with sutures", section on 'Suture materials'.)

Size — Suture should be the smallest caliber that is strong enough to reapproximate the tissue and keep the wound intact during normal postoperative activity [1]. Suture caliber is one factor in minimizing the amount of foreign material in the wound.

Synthetic versus natural — A critical element of effective closure is the choice of suture material. Sutures can be made from natural fibers or produced synthetically. Natural suture materials include silk, linen, and catgut (dried and treated bovine or ovine intestine). Synthetic sutures are made from a variety of textiles such as nylon or polyester, formulated specifically for surgical use.

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information on subscription options, click below on the option that best describes you:

Subscribers log in here

Literature review current through: Oct 2017. | This topic last updated: Aug 09, 2017.
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 ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Pearl ML, Rayburn WF. Choosing abdominal incision and closure techniques: a review. J Reprod Med 2004; 49:662.
  2. Yaltirik M, Dedeoglu K, Bilgic B, et al. Comparison of four different suture materials in soft tissues of rats. Oral Dis 2003; 9:284.
  3. MADSEN ET. An experimental and clinical evaluation of surgical suture materials. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1953; 97:73.
  4. Adapted from Ethicon Wound Closure Manual. Sommerville, NJ, Ethicon, Inc., 2005. http://surgery.uthscsa.edu/pediatric/training/woundclosuremanual.pdf (Accessed on June 29, 2011).
  5. Hodgson NC, Malthaner RA, Ostbye T. The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2000; 231:436.
  6. 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.
  7. Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, et al. Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2010; 251:843.
  8. Thiede A, Jostarndt L, Lünstedt B, Sonntag HG. [Controlled experimental histological and microbiological studies on the inhibitory effect of polyglycolic acid sutures in infections]. Chirurg 1980; 51:35.
  9. Alexander JW, Kaplan JZ, Altemeier WA. Role of suture materials in the development of wound infection. Ann Surg 1967; 165:192.
  10. McGeehan D, Hunt D, Chaudhuri A, Rutter P. An experimental study of the relationship between synergistic wound sepsis and suture materials. Br J Surg 1980; 67:636.
  11. Justinger C, Moussavian MR, Schlueter C, et al. Antibacterial [corrected] coating of abdominal closure sutures and wound infection. Surgery 2009; 145:330.
  12. Ford HR, Jones P, Gaines B, et al. Intraoperative handling and wound healing: controlled clinical trial comparing coated VICRYL plus antibacterial suture (coated polyglactin 910 suture with triclosan) with coated VICRYL suture (coated polyglactin 910 suture). Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2005; 6:313.
  13. Galal I, El-Hindawy K. Impact of using triclosan-antibacterial sutures on incidence of surgical site infection. Am J Surg 2011; 202:133.
  14. Nakamura T, Kashimura N, Noji T, et al. Triclosan-coated sutures reduce the incidence of wound infections and the costs after colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Surgery 2013; 153:576.
  15. Justinger C, Slotta JE, Ningel S, et al. Surgical-site infection after abdominal wall closure with triclosan-impregnated polydioxanone sutures: results of a randomized clinical pathway facilitated trial (NCT00998907). Surgery 2013; 154:589.
  16. Diener MK, Knebel P, Kieser M, et al. Effectiveness of triclosan-coated PDS Plus versus uncoated PDS II sutures for prevention of surgical site infection after abdominal wall closure: the randomised controlled PROUD trial. Lancet 2014; 384:142.
  17. Wang ZX, Jiang CP, Cao Y, Ding YT. Systematic review and meta-analysis of triclosan-coated sutures for the prevention of surgical-site infection. Br J Surg 2013; 100:465.
  18. Edmiston CE Jr, Daoud FC, Leaper D. Is there an evidence-based argument for embracing an antimicrobial (triclosan)-coated suture technology to reduce the risk for surgical-site infections?: A meta-analysis. Surgery 2013; 154:89.
  19. Montz FJ, Fowler JM, Farias-Eisner R, Nash TJ. Blunt needles in fascial closure. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1991; 173:147.
  20. Mingoli A, Sapienza P, Sgarzini G, et al. Influence of blunt needles on surgical glove perforation and safety for the surgeon. Am J Surg 1996; 172:512.
  21. Marcus R. Surveillance of health care workers exposed to blood from patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. N Engl J Med 1988; 319:1118.
  22. Nordkam RA, Bluyssen SJ, van Goor H. Randomized clinical trial comparing blunt tapered and standard needles in closing abdominal fascia. World J Surg 2005; 29:441.
  23. Ivy JJ, Unger JB, Hurt J, Mukherjee D. The effect of number of throws on knot security with nonidentical sliding knots. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191:1618.
  24. van Rijssel EJ, Trimbos JB, Booster MH. Mechanical performance of square knots and sliding knots in surgery: comparative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162:93.
  25. Muffly TM, Boyce J, Kieweg SL, Bonham AJ. Tensile strength of a surgeon's or a square knot. J Surg Educ 2010; 67:222.
  26. Cutler EC, Dunphy JE. The use of silk in infected wounds. N Engl J Med 1941; 224:101.
  27. Iwase K, Higaki J, Tanaka Y, et al. Running closure of clean and contaminated abdominal wounds using a synthetic monofilament absorbable looped suture. Surg Today 1999; 29:874.
  28. Weiland DE, Bay RC, Del Sordi S. Choosing the best abdominal closure by meta-analysis. Am J Surg 1998; 176:666.
  29. Rucinski J, Margolis M, Panagopoulos G, Wise L. Closure of the abdominal midline fascia: meta-analysis delineates the optimal technique. Am Surg 2001; 67:421.
  30. Ceydeli A, Rucinski J, Wise L. Finding the best abdominal closure: an evidence-based review of the literature. Curr Surg 2005; 62:220.
  31. Gurusamy KS, Cassar Delia E, Davidson BR. Peritoneal closure versus no peritoneal closure for patients undergoing non-obstetric abdominal operations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; :CD010424.
  32. Jenkins TR. It's time to challenge surgical dogma with evidence-based data. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189:423.
  33. Tulandi T, Al-Jaroudi D. Nonclosure of peritoneum: a reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189:609.
  34. Komoto Y, Shimoya K, Shimizu T, et al. Prospective study of non-closure or closure of the peritoneum at cesarean delivery in 124 women: Impact of prior peritoneal closure at primary cesarean on the interval time between first cesarean section and the next pregnancy and significant adhesion at second cesarean. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2006; 32:396.
  35. Platell C, Papadimitriou JM, Hall JC. The influence of lavage on peritonitis. J Am Coll Surg 2000; 191:672.
  36. Foresman PA, Edlich RF, Rodeheaver GT. The effect of new monofilament absorbable sutures on the healing of musculoaponeurotic incisions, gastrotomies, and colonic anastomoses. Arch Surg 1989; 124:708.
  37. Rath AM, Chevrel JP. The healing of laparotomies: review of the literature. Hernia 1998; 2:145.
  38. DOUGLAS DM. The healing of aponeurotic incisions. Br J Surg 1952; 40:79.
  39. Gislason H, Grønbech JE, Søreide O. Burst abdomen and incisional hernia after major gastrointestinal operations--comparison of three closure techniques. Eur J Surg 1995; 161:349.
  40. Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia 2015; 19:1.
  41. 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.
  42. Israelsson LA, Jonsson T. Closure of midline laparotomy incisions with polydioxanone and nylon: the importance of suture technique. Br J Surg 1994; 81:1606.
  43. Millbourn D, Israelsson LA. Wound complications and stitch length. Hernia 2004; 8:39.
  44. Cengiz Y, Gislason H, Svanes K, Israelsson LA. Mass closure technique: an experimental study on separation of wound edge. Eur J Surg 2001; 167:60.
  45. Deerenberg EB, Harlaar JJ, Steyerberg EW, et al. Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 386:1254.
  46. Seid MH, McDaniel-Owens LM, Poole GV Jr, Meeks GR. A randomized trial of abdominal incision suture technique and wound strength in rats. Arch Surg 1995; 130:394.
  47. Meeks GR, Nelson KC, Byars RW. Wound strength in abdominal incisions: a comparison of two continuous mass closure techniques in rats. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173:1676.
  48. Colombo M, Maggioni A, Parma G, et al. A randomized comparison of continuous versus interrupted mass closure of midline incisions in patients with gynecologic cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89:684.
  49. Nasir GA, Baker KK. Continuous double loop closure for midline laparotomy wounds. Saudi Med J 2001; 22:351.
  50. Nachiappan S, Markar S, Karthikesalingam A, et al. Prophylactic mesh placement in high-risk patients undergoing elective laparotomy: a systematic review. World J Surg 2013; 37:1861.
  51. Rosin D. Prevention of incisional hernia in midline laparotomy with onlay mesh: a randomized clinical trial. World J Surg 2014; 38:2231.
  52. Bevis PM, Windhaber RA, Lear PA, et al. Randomized clinical trial of mesh versus sutured wound closure after open abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Br J Surg 2010; 97:1497.
  53. Caro-Tarrago A, Olona Casas C, Jimenez Salido A, et al. Prevention of incisional hernia in midline laparotomy with an onlay mesh: a randomized clinical trial. World J Surg 2014; 38:2223.
  54. Nieuwenhuizen J, Eker HH, Timmermans L, et al. A double blind randomized controlled trial comparing primary suture closure with mesh augmented closure to reduce incisional hernia incidence. BMC Surg 2013; 13:48.
  55. Bhangu A, Fitzgerald JE, Singh P, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh placement for prevention of incisional hernia following midline laparotomy. Hernia 2013; 17:445.
  56. El-Khadrawy OH, Moussa G, Mansour O, Hashish MS. Prophylactic prosthetic reinforcement of midline abdominal incisions in high-risk patients. Hernia 2009; 13:267.
  57. Pans A, Elen P, Dewé W, Desaive C. Long-term results of polyglactin mesh for the prevention of incisional hernias in obese patients. World J Surg 1998; 22:479.
  58. Gat-Yablonski G, Sagi-Eisenberg R. Evaluation of the role of inositol trisphosphate in IgE-dependent exocytosis. Biochem J 1990; 270:685.
  59. Gutiérrez de la Peña C, Medina Achirica C, Domínguez-Adame E, Medina Díez J. Primary closure of laparotomies with high risk of incisional hernia using prosthetic material: analysis of usefulness. Hernia 2003; 7:134.
  60. Timmermans L, Eker HH, Steyerberg EW, et al. Short-term results of a randomized controlled trial comparing primary suture with primary glued mesh augmentation to prevent incisional hernia. Ann Surg 2015; 261:276.
  61. García-Ureña MÁ, López-Monclús J, Hernando LA, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the use of a large-pore polypropylene mesh to prevent incisional hernia in colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 2015; 261:876.
  62. Jairam AP, Timmermans L, Eker HH, et al. Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement versus primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): 2-year follow-up of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017; 390:567.
  63. Borab ZM, Shakir S, Lanni MA, et al. Does prophylactic mesh placement in elective, midline laparotomy reduce the incidence of incisional hernia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery 2017; 161:1149.
  64. Gurusamy KS, Toon CD, Davidson BR. Subcutaneous closure versus no subcutaneous closure after non-caesarean surgical procedures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; :CD010425.
  65. Cardosi RJ, Drake J, Holmes S, et al. Subcutaneous management of vertical incisions with 3 or more centimeters of subcutaneous fat. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195:607.
  66. Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Rodts-Palenik S, et al. Subcutaneous stitch closure versus subcutaneous drain to prevent wound disruption after cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186:1119.
  67. Ramsey PS, White AM, Guinn DA, et al. Subcutaneous tissue reapproximation, alone or in combination with drain, in obese women undergoing cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105:967.
  68. Frishman GN, Schwartz T, Hogan JW. Closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions. Staples vs. subcuticular suture. J Reprod Med 1997; 42:627.
  69. Koskela A, Kotaluoto S, Kaartinen I, et al. Continuous absorbable intradermal sutures yield better cosmetic results than nonabsorbable interrupted sutures in open appendectomy wounds: a prospective, randomized trial. World J Surg 2014; 38:1044.
  70. Nygaard IE, Squatrito RC. Abdominal incisions from creation to closure. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1996; 51:429.
  71. Murtha AP, Kaplan AL, Paglia MJ, et al. Evaluation of a novel technique for wound closure using a barbed suture. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117:1769.
  72. Edlich RF, Becker DG, Thacker JG, Rodeheaver GT. Scientific basis for selecting staple and tape skin closures. Clin Plast Surg 1990; 17:571.
  73. Gayton JC, Sensiba P, Imbrogno BF, et al. The effects of magnetic resonance imaging on surgical staples: an experimental analysis. J Trauma 2011; 70:1279.
  74. Fick JL, Novo RE, Kirchhof N. Comparison of gross and histologic tissue responses of skin incisions closed by use of absorbable subcuticular staples, cutaneous metal staples, and polyglactin 910 suture in pigs. Am J Vet Res 2005; 66:1975.
  75. Dowson CC, Gilliam AD, Speake WJ, et al. A prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing n-butyl cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (LiquiBand) with sutures for skin closure after laparoscopic general surgical procedures. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2006; 16:146.
  76. Chow A, Marshall H, Zacharakis E, et al. Use of tissue glue for surgical incision closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 211:114.
  77. Bloemen A, van Dooren P, Huizinga BF, Hoofwijk AG. Randomized clinical trial comparing polypropylene or polydioxanone for midline abdominal wall closure. Br J Surg 2011; 98:633.
  78. Gottrup F, Fogdestam I, Hunt TK. Delayed primary closure: an experimental and clinical review. J Clin Surg 1982; 1:113.
  79. Hellums EK, Lin MG, Ramsey PS. Prophylactic subcutaneous drainage for prevention of wound complications after cesarean delivery--a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197:229.
  80. Gates S, Anderson ER. Wound drainage for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; :CD004549.
  81. Falagas ME, Vergidis PI. Irrigation with antibiotic-containing solutions for the prevention and treatment of infections. Clin Microbiol Infect 2005; 11:862.
  82. Pesce C, Galvagno SM Jr, Efron DT, et al. Retained drains causing a bronchoperitoneal fistula: a case report. J Med Case Rep 2011; 5:185.
  83. Bhangu A, Singh P, Lundy J, Bowley DM. Systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary vs delayed primary skin closure in contaminated and dirty abdominal incisions. JAMA Surg 2013; 148:779.
  84. Dumville JC, Gray TA, Walter CJ, et al. Dressings for the prevention of surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; :CD003091.
  85. Walter CJ, Dumville JC, Sharp CA, Page T. Systematic review and meta-analysis of wound dressings in the prevention of surgical-site infections in surgical wounds healing by primary intention. Br J Surg 2012; 99:1185.
  86. Rubio PA. Use of semiocclusive, transparent film dressings for surgical wound protection: experience in 3637 cases. Int Surg 1991; 76:253.
  87. Hyldig N, Birke-Sorensen H, Kruse M, et al. Meta-analysis of negative-pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions. Br J Surg 2016; 103:477.
  88. O'Leary DP, Peirce C, Anglim B, et al. Prophylactic Negative Pressure Dressing Use in Closed Laparotomy Wounds Following Abdominal Operations: A Randomized, Controlled, Open-label Trial: The P.I.C.O. Trial. Ann Surg 2017; 265:1082.
  89. Chopra K, Gowda AU, Morrow C, et al. The Economic Impact of Closed-Incision Negative-Pressure Therapy in High-Risk Abdominal Incisions: A Cost-Utility Analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137:1284.