4.3 Article

Smoking is a major risk factor for wound dehiscence after midline abdominal incision; case-control study

Journal

ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 79, Issue 4, Pages 247-250

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.04854.x

Keywords

dehiscence; laparotomy; respiratory disease; smoking; surgery

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The incidence of acute fascial wound dehiscence (AFWD) after major abdominal operations is as high as 3%. AFWD is associated with mortality rates of 15-20%. Male gender, advanced age and numerous systemic factors including malignancy hypoproteinemia and steroid use have been associated with increased risk. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between smoking prevalence and AFWD. Methods: Middlemore Hospital records were retrieved from the 1997-2006 period for patients who had undergone midline abdominal surgery and developed AFWD. A return to the operating theatre for closure of the fascial dehiscence was required for study group inclusion. Each patient in the study group was matched to two control patients who had been admitted in the same year for surgery and who had a similar initial surgical intervention. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, representing the risk of developing fascial wound dehiscence in smokers compared with the non-smoking group. Results: There were 52 patients (32 male, 20 female) and 104 controls (64 male, 40 female). Median age for both groups was 63 years. A history of heavy tobacco use (20 pack-years) was more prevalent in those who had AFWD (46%) compared with the control group (16%; P = 0.0002; odds ratio 3.7). Conclusions: Smoking is associated with an increased incidence of acute fascial wound dehiscence following laparotomy. It is not known whether smoking is a causal or a surrogate factor.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available