Abdominal closure protocol in colorectal, gynecologic oncology, and urology procedures: A randomized quality improvement trial

Mary R. Kwaan, Christopher J. Weight, Stacy Jo Carda, Alyssia Mills-Hokanson, Elizabeth Wood, Colleen Rivard-Hunt, Peter A. Argenta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Scopus citations


Background Prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs) can improve surgical quality through reductions in morbidity and cost. We sought to determine whether the abdominal closure protocol, in isolation, decreases SSI at an academic teaching hospital. Methods Adult patients undergoing laparotomy were prospectively randomized to an abdominal closure protocol, which includes unused sterile instruments and equipment at fascial closure, or usual care. A 30-day SSI rates were compared. General surgery, colorectal, urology, or gynecologic oncology patients undergoing anticipated wound classification II cases were eligible. Results Overall SSI rates were 11.6% in patients randomized to protocol closure vs 12.4% for usual care (total n = 233; P =.85). The abdominal closure protocol and usual care groups had similar rates of superficial (4.5% vs 4.1%; P =.9), deep (.9% vs 0%, P =.3), organ-space SSI rates (6.2% vs 8.3%, P =.55), and wound dehiscence (2.7% vs 5.3%; P =.24). Conclusions An abdominal closure protocol did not decrease the rate of SSI and is likely not a key intervention for SSI reduction.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1077-1083
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican journal of surgery
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 1 2016



  • Closing tray
  • Colectomy
  • Hysterectomy
  • Perioperative
  • Surgical site infection
  • Urinary conduit

Cite this