The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Vertical Compared with Transverse Incisions in Abdominal Surgery
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To reach an evidence-based consensus on the relative merits of vertical and transverse laparotomy incisions. DESIGN: Review of all published randomised controlled trials that compared the postoperative complications after the two main types of abdominal incisions, vertical and transverse. SETTING: Teaching hospital, Denmark. SUBJECTS: Patients undergoing open abdominal operations. INTERVENTIONS: For some of the variables (burst abdomen and incisional hernia) it was considered adequate to include retrospective studies. Studies were identified through Medline, Cochrane library, Embase, and a manual search of relevant journals. The references cited in these studies were reviewed to find out whether any other trials fitted the selection criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Early complications including postoperative pain, pulmonary complications, burst abdomen, wound infection, and hospital stay, and late complications (incisional hernia). RESULTS: Eleven randomised controlled trials and seven retrospective studies were identified. The transverse incision offers as good an access to most intra-abdominal structures as a vertical incision. The transverse incision results in significantly less postoperative pain and fewer pulmonary complications. Vertical laparotomy, however, is associated with shorter operating time and better possibilities for extension of the incision. The pooled odds ratio for burst abdomen in the vertical incision group was 2.86 (95% confidence interval 1.72 to 4.73, p = 0.0001), and regarding late incisional hernia the pooled odds ratio was 1.68 (95% confidence interval 1.10 to 2.57. p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Transverse incisions in abdominal surgery are based on better anatomical and physiological principles. They should be recommended, as the early postoperative period is associated with fewer complications (pain, burst abdomen, and pulmonary morbidity) and there is lower incidence of late incisional hernia after transverse compared with vertical laparotomy. A midline incision is still the incision of choice in conditions that require rapid intra-abdominal entry (such as trauma) or where the preoperative diagnosis is uncertain, as it is quicker and can easily be extended.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Anaesthesia, surgery, and challenges in postoperative recovery
Kehlet, H., & Dahl, J. B. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14966-5 · Cited by 1,446
European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions
Muysoms, F. E., Antoniou, S. A., Bury, K., Campanelli, G., Conze, J., Cuccurullo, D., de Beaux, A. C., Deerenberg, E. B., East, B., Fortelny, R. H., et al. (2015) · Hernia · doi:10.1007/s10029-014-1342-5 · Cited by 640
White, P. F., Kehlet, H., Neal, J. M., Schricker, T., Carr, D. B., & Carli, F. (2007) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/01.ane.0000263034.96885.e1 · Cited by 485
Barber, M. D., Brubaker, L., Burgio, K. L., Richter, H. E., Nygaard, I., Weidner, A. C., Menefee, S. A., Lukacz, E. S., Norton, P., Schaffer, J., et al. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.1719 · Cited by 428
Scott, M. J., Baldini, G., Fearon, K. C. H., Feldheiser, A., Feldman, L. S., Gan, T. J., Ljungqvist, O., Lobo, D. N., Rockall, T. A., Schricker, T., et al. (2015) · Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aas.12601 · Cited by 398
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosenberg, T. P. G.
- Venue
- The European Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-04-01
- Volume
- 167
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 260-267
- ISSN
- 1102-4151 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2136153836
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Vertical Compared with Transverse Incisions in Abdominal Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/110241501300091408
- The paper
- Rosenberg, T. P. G. (2001). Vertical Compared with Transverse Incisions in Abdominal Surgery. The European Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1080/110241501300091408
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.