[Abdominal vacuum device with open abdomen]

2018 WSES/SIS-E consensus conference: recommendations for the management of skin and soft-tissue infections

Skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) encompass a variety of pathological conditions that involve the skin and underlying subcutaneous tissue, fascia, or muscle, ranging from simple superficial infections to severe necrotizing infections. SSTIs are a frequent clinical problem in surgical departments. In order to clarify key issues in the management of SSTIs, a task force of experts met in Bertinoro, Italy, on June 28, 2018, for a specialist multidisciplinary consensus conference under the auspices of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the Surgical Infection Society Europe (SIS-E). The multifaceted nature of these infections has led to a collaboration among general and emergency surgeons, intensivists, and infectious disease specialists, who have shared these clinical practice recommendations.

The role of open abdomen in non-trauma patient: WSES Consensus Paper

The open abdomen (OA) is defined as intentional decision to leave the fascial edges of the abdomen un-approximated after laparotomy (laparostomy). The abdominal contents are potentially exposed and therefore must be protected with a temporary coverage, which is referred to as temporal abdominal closure (TAC). OA use remains widely debated with many specific details deserving detailed assessment and clarification. To date, in patients with intra-abdominal emergencies, the OA has not been formally endorsed for routine utilization; although, utilization is seemingly increasing. Therefore, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Abdominal Compartment Society (WSACS) and the Donegal Research Academy united a worldwide group of experts in an international consensus conference to review and thereafter propose the basis for evidence-directed utilization of OA management in non-trauma emergency surgery and critically ill patients. In addition to utilization recommendations, questions with insufficient evidence urgently requiring future study were identified.

Intensive care and health outcomes of open abdominal treatment: long-term results of vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM)

PURPOSE

The study's purpose is to evaluate the long-term outcome after vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM) and to identify predictors of quality of life associated with intensive care.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients who underwent open abdomen management at our institution from 2006 to 2013 were prospectively enrolled in this study. After a median follow-up period of 3.8 years, 27 patients completed the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) quality of life questionnaire. As this is a report solely focused on quality of life, direct treatment-related outcome measures like mortality, closure rates, and incisional hernia development of this study cohort have been reported previously.

RESULTS

 = 0.50, β = -0.70, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high short-term mortality and morbidity rates for these critically ill patients, open abdomen treatment using VAWCM allows patients to recover to an acceptable long-term quality of life. The complex intensive care score can be used as a surrogate parameter for the global severity of illness and was the only predictor of physical functioning (SF-36).

Complications and Mortality Associated with Temporary Abdominal Closure Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques are routinely used in the open abdomen. Ideally, they should prevent evisceration, aid in removal of unwanted fluid from the peritoneal cavity, facilitate in achieving safe definitive fascial closure, as well as prevent the development of intra-abdominal complications. TAC techniques used in the open abdomen were compared with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) to identify which was superior. A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines involving Medline, Excerpta Medica, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Clinicaltrials.gov. All studies describing TAC technique use in the open abdomen were eligible for inclusion. Data were analyzed per TAC technique in the form of a meta-analysis. A total of 225 articles were included in the final analysis. A meta-analysis involving only randomized controlled trials showed that NPWT with continuous fascial closure was superior to NPWT alone for definitive fascial closure [mean difference (MD): 35% ± 23%; P = 0.0044]. A subsequent meta-analysis involving all included studies confirmed its superiority across outcomes for definitive fascial closure (MD: 19% ± 3%; P < 0.0001), perioperative (MD: -4.0% ± 2.4%; P = 0.0013) and in-hospital (MD: -5.0% ± 2.9%; P = 0.0013) mortality, entero-atmospheric fistula (MD: 22.0% ± 1.8%; P = 0.0041), ventral hernia (MD: -4.0% ± 2.4%; P = 0.0010), and intra-abdominal abscess (MD: -3.1% ± 2.1%; P = 0.0044). Therefore, it was concluded that NPWT with continuous fascial traction is superior to NPWT alone.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the open abdomen and temporary abdominal closure techniques in non-trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Several challenging clinical situations in patients with peritonitis can result in an open abdomen (OA) and subsequent temporary abdominal closure (TAC). Indications and treatment choices differ among surgeons. The risk of fistula development and the possibility to achieve delayed fascial closure differ between techniques. The aim of this study was to review the literature on the OA and TAC in peritonitis patients, to analyze indications and to assess delayed fascial closure, enteroatmospheric fistula and mortality rate, overall and per TAC technique.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for studies describing the OA in patients of whom 50% or more had peritonitis of a non-traumatic origin.

RESULTS

The search identified 74 studies describing 78 patient series, comprising 4,358 patients of which 3,461 (79%) had peritonitis. The overall quality of the included studies was low and the indications for open abdominal management differed considerably. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) was the most frequent described TAC technique (38 of 78 series). The highest weighted fascial closure rate was found in series describing NPWT with continuous mesh or suture mediated fascial traction (6 series, 463 patients: 73.1%, 95% confidence interval 63.3-81.0%) and dynamic retention sutures (5 series, 77 patients: 73.6%, 51.1-88.1%). Weighted rates of fistula varied from 5.7% after NPWT with fascial traction (2.2-14.1%), 14.6% (12.1-17.6%) for NPWT only, and 17.2% after mesh inlay (17.2-29.5%).

CONCLUSION

Although the best results in terms of achieving delayed fascial closure and risk of enteroatmospheric fistula were shown for NPWT with continuous fascial traction, the overall quality of the available evidence was poor, and uniform recommendations cannot be made.

Management of the open abdomen using vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction

BACKGROUND

The open abdomen has become an accepted treatment option of critically ill patients with severe intra-abdominal conditions. Fascial closure is a particular challenge in patients with peritonitis. This study investigates whether fascial closure rates can be increased in peritonitis patients by using an algorithm that combines vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction. Moreover, fascial closure rates for patients with peritonitis, trauma or abdominal compartment system (ACS) are compared.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively from all patients who underwent open abdomen management at our institution from 2006 to 2012. All patients were treated under a standardised algorithm that combines vacuum-assisted closure and mesh placement at the fascial level.

RESULTS

During the study period, 53 patients (mean age 53 years) underwent open abdomen management for a mean duration of 15 days. Indications for leaving the abdomen open were peritonitis (51 %), trauma (26 %), and ACS or abdominal wall dehiscence (23 %). The fascial closure rate was 79 % in an intention-to-treat analysis and 89 % in a per-protocol analysis. Mortality was 13 %. No patient developed an enteroatmospheric fistula or abdominal wall dehiscence after closure. The mean duration of treatment was significantly longer in peritonitis patients (20 days) than in patients without peritonitis (10 days) (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in fascial closure rates between patients with peritonitis (87 %), trauma (85 %), and ACS or abdominal wall dehiscence (100 %) (p = 0.647).

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of the underlying pathology, high fascial closure rates can be achieved using a combination of vacuum-assisted closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction.

The open abdomen and temporary abdominal closure systems--historical evolution and systematic review

AIM

Several techniques for temporary abdominal closure have been developed. We systematically review the literature on temporary abdominal closure to ascertain whether the method can be tailored to the indication.

METHOD

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and relevant meeting abstracts until December 2009 were searched using the following headings: open abdomen, laparostomy, VAC (vacuum assisted closure), TNP (topical negative pressure), fascial closure, temporary abdominal closure, fascial dehiscence and deep wound dehiscence. The data were analysed by closure technique and aetiology. The primary end-points included delayed fascial closure and in-hospital mortality. The secondary end-points were intra-abdominal complications.

RESULTS

The search identified 106 papers for inclusion. The techniques described were VAC (38 series), mesh/sheet (30 series), packing (15 series), Wittmann patch (eight series), Bogotá bag (six series), dynamic retention sutures (three series), zipper (15 series), skin only and locking device (one series each). The highest facial closure rates were seen with the Wittmann patch (78%), dynamic retention sutures (71%) and VAC (61%).

CONCLUSION

Temporary abdominal closure has evolved from simple packing to VAC based systems. In the absence of sepsis Wittmann patch and VAC offered the best outcome. In its presence VAC had the highest delayed primary closure and the lowest mortality rates. However, due to data heterogeneity only limited conclusions can be drawn from this analysis.

Surgical strategies for management of the open abdomen

Since the mid-1990s the surgical community has seen a surge in the prevalence of open abdomens (OAs) reported in the surgical literature and in clinical practice. The OA has proven to be effective in decreasing mortality and immediate postoperative complications; however, it may come at the cost of delayed morbidity and the need for further surgical procedures. Indications for leaving the abdomen open have broadened to include damage control surgery, abdominal compartment syndrome, and abdominal sepsis. The surgical options for management of the OA are now more diverse and sophisticated, but there is a lack of prospective randomized controlled trials demonstrating the superiority of any particular method. Additionally, critical care strategies for optimization of the patient with an OA are still being developed. Review of the literature suggests a bimodal distribution of primary closure rates, with early closure dependent on postoperative intensive care management and delayed closure more affected by the choice of the temporary abdominal closure technique. Invariably, a small fraction of patients requiring OA management fail to have primary fascial closure and require some form of biologic fascial bridge with delayed ventral hernia repair in the future.

Treatment of the open abdomen with the commercially available vacuum-assisted closure system in patients with abdominal sepsis: low primary closure rate

BACKGROUND

Abdominal Vacuum-Assisted Closure (V.A.C.) systems for treatment of open abdomens have been predominantly used for trauma patients with a high primary fascial closure rate. Use of the V.A.C. technique in abdominal sepsis is less well established.

METHODS

All patients with abdominal sepsis and treatment with the abdominal V.A.C. system between 2004 and 2007 were prospectively assessed. End points were fascial closure, V.A.C.-related morbidity, and quality of life score (SF-36) at follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty patients with abdominal sepsis were included in the study. Primary fascial closure was feasible in 10, partial closure in 4, and no closure in 16 patients. Median number of V.A.C. changes was 3 (range, 1-10). Nine patients died. V.A.C.-related morbidity was as follows: two fistulas, three fascial edge necroses, one skin blister, and four prolapses of small bowel between the fascia and foam. Univariate analysis showed no variables influencing primary closure rate or V.A.C.-related morbidity. Mortality was significantly influenced by age (P < 0.001), respiratory failure (P = 0.01), and pneumonia (P = 0.03). At follow-up, V.A.C. patients scored lower in the physical health scores and similar in the mental health scores compared with the normal population.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of the open abdomen in patients with abdominal sepsis with the abdominal V.A.C. system is safe with good long-term quality of life. Primary closure rate in these patients is substantially lower than in trauma patients. Stepwise closure of the fascia during V.A.C. changes should be attempted to avoid additional lateral retraction of fascial edges. V.A.C.-related complications may be avoided with careful surgical technique.

Temporary closure of the open abdomen: a systematic review on delayed primary fascial closure in patients with an open abdomen

Background

This study was designed to systematically review the literature to assess which temporary abdominal closure (TAC) technique is associated with the highest delayed primary fascial closure (FC) rate. In some cases of abdominal trauma or infection, edema or packing precludes fascial closure after laparotomy. This “open abdomen” must then be temporarily closed. However, the FC rate varies between techniques.

Methods

The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched until December 2007. References were checked for additional studies. Search criteria included (synonyms of) “open abdomen,” “fascial closure,” “vacuum,” “reapproximation,” and “ventral hernia.” Open abdomen was defined as “the inability to close the abdominal fascia after laparotomy.” Two reviewers independently extracted data from original articles by using a predefined checklist.

Results

The search identified 154 abstracts of which 96 were considered relevant. No comparative studies were identified. After reading them, 51 articles, including 57 case series were included. The techniques described were vacuum-assisted closure (VAC; 8 series), vacuum pack (15 series), artificial burr (4 series), Mesh/sheet (16 series), zipper (7 series), silo (3 series), skin closure (2 series), dynamic retention sutures (DRS), and loose packing (1 series each). The highest FC rates were seen in the artificial burr (90%), DRS (85%), and VAC (60%). The lowest mortality rates were seen in the artificial burr (17%), VAC (18%), and DRS (23%).

Conclusions

These results suggest that the artificial burr and the VAC are associated with the highest FC rates and the lowest mortality rates.

In Vitro Comparison of Intra-Abdominal Hypertension Development After Different Temporary Abdominal Closure Techniques

BACKGROUND

To compare volume reserve capacity (VRC) and development of intra-abdominal hypertension after different in vitro temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques.

METHODS

A model of the abdomen was designed. The abdominal wall was simulated with polychloroprene, a synthetic rubber compound. A lentil-shaped defect of 150 cm(2) was cut into the anterior aspect of the abdominal wall. TAC of this defect was performed by a zipper system (ZS), a bag silo closure (BSC), or a vacuum assisted closure (VAC) with subatmospheric pressures ranging from 0- to 200 mmHg. The model with intact abdominal wall served as reference. The model was filled with water to baseline level. The intra-abdominal pressure was increased in 2 mmHg steps from baseline level (6 mmHg) to 40 mmHg by adding volume to the system according to a standardized protocol. VRC with corresponding intra-abdominal pressure were analyzed and compared for the different TAC techniques.

RESULTS

VRC was the highest after BSC at all pressure levels studied (P < 0.05). VAC and ZS resulted in significantly lower VRC compared with BSC and reference (P < 0.05). The magnitude of negative pressure on the VAC did not significantly influence the VRC.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present in vitro model, BSC demonstrated the highest VRC of all evaluated TAC techniques. Different levels of subatmospheric pressures applied to the VAC did not affect VRC. The results for ZS and VAC indicate that these TAC techniques may increase the risk for recurrent intra-abdominal hypertension and should therefore not be used in high-risk patients during the initial phase after abdominal decompression.