Suture Techniques to Reduce the Incidence of Incisional Hernia: LTFU STITCH Trial

NCT ID: NCT06066385

Last Updated: 2023-10-04

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

560 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2023-08-01

Study Completion Date

2024-10-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Rationale: Incisional hernias (IH) are a frequent complication after abdominal surgery. Prevalence of an IH varies depending on the previous abdominal procedure but could be as high as 70% in high-risk patients after open surgery. To investigate different fascia closure techniques in the prevention of IHs, the STITCH trial (NCT01132209) was designed. The study compared two different closure techniques for closure of a midline incision in adult patients undergoing an elective abdominal laparotomy. Patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group (small bites 5 mm x 5 mm) or the control group (large bites 1 cm x 1 cm). The study showed that small bites are much more effective than large bites in the prevention of an incisional hernia when closing a midline incision.

So far, it has not been studied whether there is still a long-term difference in incidence of incisional hernia between the small bites and the large bites group.

Objective: The primary objective of this study is to determine the difference in incidence of IH between the small bites and the large bites group after 10 years of follow-up from time of randomization in the STITCH trial. The secondary objectives are to measure quality of life (QoL), body image and cosmetic results, and abdominal wall function through questionnaires and physical examination in those patients who are still alive.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Rationale: Incisional hernias (IH) are a frequent complication after abdominal surgery. Prevalence of an IH varies depending on the previous abdominal procedure but could be as high as 70% in high-risk patients after open surgery. To investigate different fascia closure techniques in the prevention of IHs, the STITCH trial (NCT01132209) was designed, a randomized controlled trial in which 560 patients were included between October 2009 and March 2012. The study compared two different closure techniques for closure of a midline incision in adult patients undergoing an elective abdominal laparotomy. Patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group (small bites 5 mm x 5 mm) or the control group (large bites 1 cm x 1 cm). It showed that small bites are much more effective than large bites in the prevention of an incisional hernia when closing a midline incision.

So far, it has not been studied whether there is still a long-term difference in incidence of incisional hernia between the small bites and the large bites group.

Objective: The primary objective of this study study is to determine the difference in incidence of IH between the small bites and the large bites group after 10 years of follow-up from time of randomization in the STITCH trial. The secondary objectives are to measure quality of life (QoL), body image and cosmetic results, and abdominal wall function through questionnaires and physical examination in those patients who are still alive.

Study design: Assessment of long-term follow-up (10-13 years) of a randomized controlled multicenter study based on retrospective review of patient files and relevant imaging of the entire trial population, as well as questionnaires and physical and radiological examination of patient who are still alive.

Study population: Of the 560 included patients in the original STITCH trial, 545 completed the 1-year follow-up.

Intervention (if applicable): Not applicable. Main study parameters/endpoints: The primary outcome measure is the 10-year midline incisional hernia rate. The primary endpoint will be determined for the 545 patients of the original intention-to-treat population using Kaplan Meier analysis. In patients who died during follow-up, this will be evaluated by reviewing the available medical charts and radiological studies. CT-scans of the abdomen will be evaluated by the study-team. If CT imaging is not available, documented findings during physical examination by the relevant medical specialist will be considered. Patients being still alive with written informed consent to be contacted will be approached for their willingness to participate in this follow-up study, and after consent, we will reassess CT scans for an incisional hernia. All patients who are still alive and want to participate in this study will be asked to visit the hospital once for physical examination and an ultrasound of the abdominal wall.

Secondary outcome parameters include QoL and cosmetic outcome, Patients still alive with consent for participation will be sent the following questionnaires: MOS SF-36 and EQ-5D (QoL), Dresden Body Image Questionnaire (body image), Body Image Questionnaire (cosmesis), Hernia-Related Quality of Life Survey (abdominal wall function). Furthermore, readmission and surgical intervention rates related to midline IH will be determined for the entire study population.

Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness: Undergoing an ultrasound, physical examination and completing several questionnaires may be considered burdensome for the patient.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Surgery Incisional Hernia Wound Infection Fascial Dehiscence Pain Quality of Life

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

A Long-term follow-up with Outcome Assesor blinding of a parallel assigned double blinded (Participant, Investigator) Randomised Controlled trial
Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Outcome Assessors
Outcome assessors of previous radiological imaging and imaging created during our Long-term follow up will be blinded to the assigned randomization arm.

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Small bites suturing technique of the abdominal wall during midline laparotomy

In the experimental group of 288 patients the small bites technique was applied with bite widths of 0,5 cm and inter suture spacing of 0,5 cm with the use of PDS plus ll 2-0 single suture material with a 31 mm needle placed in the linea alba. In the small bites technique, twice as many stitches will be placed per sutured cm, with a smaller needle and thinner suture material.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Small bites technique

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Closure of the fascia after midline laparotomy using a slowly resorbalbe 2.0 suture, with 0.5 cm bites, and 0.5 cm between the stitches, at least resulting in a 1:4 wound length:suture length ratio.

Large bites suturing technique of the abdominal wall during midline laparotomy

As control the conventional large bites technique (mass closure) was applied with bites widths of 1 cm and inter-suture spacing of 1 cm with the use of PDS plus ll 1-0 double loop suture material with a 48 mm needle.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Conventional large bites closure

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Closure of a midline laparotomy using a slowy resorbable thick suture (e.g. PDS loop) with large bites and large steps (\>= 1 cm).

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Small bites technique

Closure of the fascia after midline laparotomy using a slowly resorbalbe 2.0 suture, with 0.5 cm bites, and 0.5 cm between the stitches, at least resulting in a 1:4 wound length:suture length ratio.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Conventional large bites closure

Closure of a midline laparotomy using a slowy resorbable thick suture (e.g. PDS loop) with large bites and large steps (\>= 1 cm).

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Available signed informed consent form for the original STITCH trial of the patients who are still alive.
* Or if the patients has died, the medical records are reviewed.

A potential subject who meets the following criteria will be excluded from participation in this study:

\- Patients that on the original informed consent form of the STITCH trial, checked the box that they did not want to be approached for future follow-up studies.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

110 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Franciscus &Vlietland

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Rijnstate Hospital

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Spaarne Gasthuis

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Meander Medisch Centrum

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Red Cross Hospital Beverwijk

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Erasmus Medical Center

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Prof. dr. Pieter J Tanis

Prof.dr. P.J. Tanis

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Pieter J Tanis

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Erasmus Medical Center

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Erasmus MC

Rotterdam, South Holland, Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Meander Medical Center

Amersfoort, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Rijnstate ziekenhuis

Arnhem, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Red Cross Hospital

Beverwijk, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Groene Hart Ziekenhuis

Gouda, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Spaarne Gasthuis

Haarlem, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland

Rotterdam, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Prior Havenziekenhuis patients currently in the Erasmus MC

Rotterdam, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis

Tilburg, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Netherlands

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Rudolf van den Berg

Role: CONTACT

0107043683

Sarah van Egmond

Role: CONTACT

0107043683

Facility Contacts

Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.

Pieter J Tanis, Prof.dr

Role: primary

003110 704 0704

Provided Documents

Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.

Document Type: Study Protocol

View Document

Related Links

Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

IIS WC-2022-06

Identifier Type: OTHER_GRANT

Identifier Source: secondary_id

MEC 2022-0652

Identifier Type: REGISTRY

Identifier Source: secondary_id

9354

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

The Permacol Dutch Cohort Study
NCT02166112 COMPLETED