OBJECTIVE To determine whether abdominal wound closure with a running, looped monofilament polybutester suture was as effective, inexpensive, and rapid as Smead-Jones closure using the same material. METHODS Between April 19, 1990 and August 29, 1991, 154 patients undergoing major gynecologic surgery had wound closure using a running, looped monofilament polybutester suture. Controls were 154 patients undergoing similar surgical procedures in the 15 months immediately preceding the study period (January 5, 1989 to April 18, 1990) whose wounds were closed with 0 polybutester using the Smead-Jones technique. All patients received prophylactic cephalosporin antibiotic therapy and external pneumatic leg compression perioperatively. The subcutaneous tissues were not sutured after fascial closure, and the skin was closed with stainless-steel staples. There was no difference between the groups when compared by mean weight, mean ponderal index, number of previous abdominal operations, operative blood loss, or the use of chemotherapy or radiotherapy in the pre- or postoperative period. Both groups had similar rates of complicating medical conditions including insulin-dependent and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obstructive pulmonary disease, atherosclerotic coronary disease, or peripheral vascular disease. RESULTS The use of a running closure with looped monofilament polybutester suture in the study patients resulted in a reduction in operating time when compared with controls. The rates of superficial separation and wound infection were similar in both groups. In the study group, there was one minor fascial separation and one wound dehiscence, which occurred when the running suture was inadvertently snipped during debridement of a superficial infection. CONCLUSIONS Running closure with looped polybutester is an acceptable, inexpensive, and expeditious method of abdominal wound closure.