Intraperitoneal mesh implantation for fascial dehiscence and open abdomen

A prospective multicentre study evaluating the outcomes of the abdominal wall dehiscence repair using posterior component separation with transversus abdominis muscle release reinforced by a retro-muscular mesh: filling a step

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the results of posterior component separation (CS) and transversus abdominis muscle release (TAR) with retro-muscular mesh reinforcement in patients with primary abdominal wall dehiscence (AWD). The secondary aims were to detect the incidence of postoperative surgical site occurrence and risk factors of incisional hernia (IH) development following AWD repair with posterior CS with TAR reinforced by retromuscular mesh.

METHODS

Between June 2014 and April 2018, 202 patients with grade IA primary AWD (Björck's first classification) following midline laparotomies were treated using posterior CS with TAR release reinforced by a retro-muscular mesh in a prospective multicenter cohort study.

RESULTS

The mean age was 42 ± 10 years, with female predominance (59.9%). The mean time from index surgery (midline laparotomy) to primary AWD was 7 ± 3 days. The mean vertical length of primary AWD was 16 ± 2 cm. The median time from primary AWD occurrence to posterior CS + TAR surgery was 3 ± 1 days. The mean operative time of posterior CS + TAR was 95 ± 12 min. No recurrent AWD occurred. Surgical site infections (SSI), seroma, hematoma, IH, and infected mesh occurred in 7.9%, 12.4%, 2%, 8.9%, and 3%, respectively. Mortality was reported in 2.5%. Old age, male gender, smoking, albumin level < 3.5 gm%, time from AWD to posterior CS + TAR surgery, SSI, ileus, and infected mesh were significantly higher in IH. IH rate was 0.5% and 8.9% at two and three years, respectively. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, the predictors of IH were time from AWD till posterior CS + TAR surgical intervention, ileus, SSI, and infected mesh.

CONCLUSION

Posterior CS with TAR reinforced by retro-muscular mesh insertion resulted in no AWD recurrence, low IH rates, and low mortality of 2.5%. Trial registration Clinical trial: NCT05278117.

Interrupted sutures prevent recurrent abdominal fascial dehiscence: a comparative retrospective single center cohort analysis of risk factors of burst abdomen and its recurrence as well as surgical repair techniques

Background

Burst abdomen (BA) is a severe complication after abdominal surgery, which often requires urgent repair. However, evidence on surgical techniques to prevent burst abdomen recurrence (BAR) is scarce.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with BA comparing them to patients with superficial surgical site infections from the years 2015 to 2018. The data was retrieved from the institutional wound register. We analyzed risk factors for BA occurrence as well as its recurrence after BA repair and surgical closure techniques that would best prevent BAR.

Results

We included 504 patients in the analysis, 111 of those suffered from BA. We found intestinal resection (OR 172.510; 22.195–1340.796, p < 0.001), liver cirrhosis (OR 4.788; 2.034–11.269, p < 0.001) and emergency surgery (OR 1.658; 1.050–2.617; p = 0.03) as well as postoperative delirium (OR 5.058; 1.349–18.965, p = 0.016) as the main predictor for developing BA. The main reason for BA was superficial surgical site infection (40.7%). 110 patients received operative revision of the abdominal fascial dehiscence and 108 were eligible for BAR analysis with 14 cases of BAR. Again, post-operative delirium was the patient-related predictor for BAR (OR 13.73; 95% CI 1.812–104-023, p = 0.011). The surgical technique of using interrupted sutures opposed to continuous sutures showed a preventive effect on BAR (OR 0.143, 95% CI 0.026–0,784, p = 0.025). The implantation of an absorbable IPOM mesh did not reduce BAR, but it did reduce the necessity of BAR revision significantly.

Conclusion

The use of interrupted sutures together with the implantation of an intraabdominal mesh in burst abdomen repair helps to reduce BAR and the need for additional revision surgeries.

Biologic mesh implantation is associated with serious abdominal wall complications in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery: A randomized-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Open, emergency abdominal surgery is associated with a high incidence of fascial dehiscence and incisional hernia. Implantation of biologic meshes potentially reinforces the abdominal wall and therefore decreases such complications. The aim of this prospective randomized study was to compare the outcome after prophylactic intraperitoneal implantation of a biologic Strattice mesh (Allergan, Dublin, Ireland) with standard abdominal closure in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery.

METHODS

A two-arm randomized clinical trial was performed in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery at Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland, from April 2016 to March 2019. Patients were randomly assigned to prophylactic implantation of a biological intraperitoneal mesh using Strattice, Allergan (mesh group), or standard abdominal closure using a single, continuous running suture (no-mesh group). Because of safety concerns, patient enrollment was closed prematurely.

RESULTS

Eligibility for inclusion was assessed in 61 patients. A total of 48 patients were randomized (21 in the mesh group, 28 in the no-mesh group). No differences in baseline characteristics were found. Abdominal wall complications requiring reoperations were more frequent in the mesh group compared to the no-mesh group (5 [83.3%] of 13 vs. 1 [14.3%] of 13 patients, p = 0.026). Mesh-associated abdominal wall complications included nonintegration of the mesh into the abdominal wall, dissolution of the mesh, and mesh-related infections.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery, intraperitoneal biologic Strattice mesh implantation is associated with significantly more frequent abdominal wall complications requiring reoperation. Therefore, the use of such meshes cannot be recommended in the contaminated environment of emergency abdominal surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, level I.

Management of abdominal wound dehiscence: update of the literature and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Abdominal wound dehiscence (AWD) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We aimed to provide a contemporary overview of management strategies for AWD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and a clinical trials registry were searched from 2009 onwards using the key words "abdominal wound dehiscence", "fascial dehiscence" and "burst abdomen". Study outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI), recurrence, incisional hernia and 30-day mortality. Studies reported by the EHS clinical guidelines on AWD were included and compared with. OpenMetaAnalyst was used for meta-analysis to calculate statistical significance and odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included reporting on a total of 632 patients: 16 retrospective studies, one early terminated randomized controlled trial, one review and the European Hernia Society guidelines. Nine studies reported use of synthetic mesh (n = 241), two of which used vacuum-assisted mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM) (n = 19), six without VAWCM (n = 198) and one used synthetic mesh with both VAWCM (n = 6) and without VAWCM (n = 18); two used biological mesh (n = 19). Seven studies reported primary suture closure (n = 299). Three studies reported on an alternative method (n = 91). Follow-up ranged between 1 and 96 months. Meta-analysis was performed to compare the primary suture group with the synthetic mesh group. Heterogeneity was low to moderate depending on outcome. The overall SSI rate in the primary suture group was 27.6% versus 27.9% in the synthetic mesh group, resulting in mesh explantation in five patients; OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.23-1.81). Incisional hernia rates were 11.1% in the synthetic mesh group (19/171) and 30.7% in the primary suture group (67/218); OR 4.01 (95% CI 1.70-9.46). Recurrence rate did not show a statistically significant difference at 2.7% in the synthetic mesh group (3/112), compared to 10.2% in the primary suture group (21/206); OR 1.81 (95% CI 0.18-17.80). Mortality rates varied between 11.2% and 16.7% for primary suture group versus synthetic mesh; OR 1.85 (95% CI 0.91-3.76).

CONCLUSION

Included studies were of low to very low quality. The use of synthetic mesh results in a significantly lower rate of incisional hernia, whereas SSI rate was comparable to primary suture repair.

Is there a role for prophylactic mesh in abdominal wall closure after emergency laparotomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernias are a common complication of emergency laparotomy and are associated with significant morbidity. Recent studies have found a reduction in incisional hernias when mesh is placed prophylactically during abdominal closure in elective laparotomies. This systematic review will assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement in emergency laparotomy.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42018109283). Papers were dual screened for eligibility, and included when a comparison was made between closure with prophylactic mesh and closure with a standard technique, reported using a comparative design (i.e. case-control, cohort or randomised trial), where the primary outcome was incisional hernia. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias in non-randomised studies tool. A meta-analysis of incisional hernia rate was performed to estimate risk ratio using a random effects model (Mantel-Haenszel approach).

RESULTS

332 studies were screened for eligibility, 29 full texts were reviewed and 2 non-randomised studies were included. Both studies were biased due to confounding factors, as closure technique was based on patient risk factors for incisional hernia. Both studies found significantly fewer incisional hernias in the mesh groups [3.2% vs 28.6% (p < 0.001) and 5.9% vs 33.3% (p = 0.0001)]. A meta-analysis of incisional hernia risk favoured prophylactic mesh closure [risk ratio 0.15 (95% CI 0.6-0.35, p < 0.001)]. Neither study found an association between mesh and infection or enterocutaneous fistula.

CONCLUSION

This review found that there are limited data to assess the effect or safety profile of prophylactic mesh in the emergency laparotomy setting. The current data cannot reliably assess the use of mesh due to confounding factors, and a randomised controlled trial is required to address this important clinical question.

Effectiveness of Prophylactic Intraperitoneal Mesh Implantation for Prevention of Incisional Hernia in Patients Undergoing Open Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication after open abdominal surgery. Prophylactic mesh implantation in the onlay or sublay position requires dissection of the abdominal wall, potentially leading to wound-associated complications.

Objective

To compare the incidence of incisional hernia among patients after prophylactic intraperitoneal mesh implantation with that among patients after standard abdominal closure.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An open-label randomized clinical trial was performed in 169 patients undergoing elective open abdominal surgery from January 1, 2011, to February 29, 2014. Follow-up examinations were performed 1 year and 3 years after surgery. The study was conducted at Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, a referral center that offers the whole spectrum of abdominal surgical interventions. Patients with 2 or more of the following risk factors were included: overweight or obesity, diagnosis of neoplastic disease, male sex, or history of previous laparotomy. Patients were randomly assigned to prophylactic intraperitoneal mesh implantation or standard abdominal closure. Data were analyzed in August 2017.

Interventions

Intraperitoneal implantation of a polypropylene-polyvinylidene fluoride mesh with circumferential fixation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the incidence of incisional hernia 3 years after surgery. Secondary end points included mesh-related complications.

Results

After the exclusion of 19 patients, 150 patients (81 in the control group and 69 in the mesh group; mean [SD] age, 64.2 [11.1] years; 102 [68.0%] male) were studied. The cumulative incidence of incisional hernia was significantly lower in the mesh group compared with the control group (5 of 69 [7.2%] vs 15 of 81 [18.5%], log-rank test P = .03). Abdominal pain was observed in significantly more patients in the mesh group compared with the control group at 6 weeks (34 of 52 [65%] vs 26 of 59 [44%], P = .04) but not at 12 and 36 months postoperatively. No difference in surgical site infections was observed, but time to complete wound healing of surgical site infection was significantly longer in patients with mesh implantation (median [interquartile range], 8 [6-24] weeks compared with 5 [1-9] weeks; P = .03). Trunk extension was significantly decreased after mesh implantation compared with the control group (mean [SD], 1.73 [0.97] cm vs 2.40 [1.23] cm, P = .009).

Conclusions and Relevance

In patients at elevated risk for incisional hernia, prophylactic intraperitoneal mesh implantation reduces the incidence of hernia formation but with increased early postoperative pain and prolonged wound healing of surgical site infection.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01203553.

Mesh-augmented versus direct abdominal closure in patients undergoing open abdomen treatment

Background

Open abdomen (OA) may be required in patients with abdominal trauma, sepsis or compartment syndrome. Vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM) is a widely used approach for temporary abdominal closure to close the abdominal wall. However, this method is associated with a high incidence of re-operations in short term and late sequelae such as incisional hernia. The current study aims to compare the results of surgical strategies of OA with versus without permanent mesh augmentation.

Methods

Patients with OA treatment undergoing vacuum-assisted wound closure and an intraperitoneal onlay mesh (VAC-IPOM) implantation were compared to VAWCM with direct fascial closure which represents the current standard of care. Outcomes of patients from two tertiary referral centers that performed the different strategies for abdominal closure after OA treatment were compared in univariate and multivariate regression analysis.

Results

A total of 139 patients were included in the study. Of these, 50 (36.0%) patients underwent VAC-IPOM and 89 (64.0%) patients VAWCM. VAC-IPOM was associated with reduced re-operations (adjusted incidence risk ratio 0.48 per 10-person days; CI 95% = 0.39–0.58, p < 0.001), reduced duration of stay on intensive care unit (ICU) [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.53; CI 95% = 0.36–0.79, p = 0.002] and reduced hospital stay (aHR 0.61; CI 95% = 0.040–0.94; p = 0.024). In-hospital mortality [22.5 vs 18.0%, risk difference − 4.5; confidence interval (CI) 95% = − 18.2 to 9.3; p = 0.665] and the incidence of intestinal fistula (18.0 vs 22.0%, risk difference 4.0; CI 95% = −10.0 to 18.0; p = 0.656) did not differ between the two groups. In Kaplan–Meier analysis, hernia-free survival was significantly increased after VAC-IPOM (p = 0.041).

Conclusions

In patients undergoing OA treatment, intraperitoneal mesh augmentation is associated with a significantly decreased number of re-operations, duration of hospital and ICU stay and incidence of incisional hernias when compared to VAWCM.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10029-018-1798-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Management Approaches for Enterocutaneous Fistulas

There are very few clinical studies that highlight a definitive and comprehensive guideline for the management of enterocutaneous fistulas. Most accepted guidelines are found in textbooks and are taken from expert advice and case reports. The goal of this review is to highlight advancements relevant to the management of enterocutaneous fistulas from the recent two to three years. Although strong evidence-based guidelines are lacking, the consensus is that a multidisciplinary team working with a clear treatment plan targeting multiple aspects of management can maximize patient outcomes.

Prophylactic, Synthetic Intraperitoneal Mesh Versus No Mesh Implantation in Patients with Fascial Dehiscence

BACKGROUND

Primary closure of post-operative facial dehiscence (FD) is associated with a high incidence of recurrence, revisional surgery, and incisional hernia. This retrospective study compares outcomes of implantation of non-absorbable intra-abdominal meshes with primary closure of FD. The outcomes of different mesh materials were assessed in subgroup analysis.

METHODS

A total of 119 consecutive patients with FD were operated (70 mesh group and 49 no mesh group) between 2001 and 2015. Primary outcome parameter was hernia-free survival. Secondary outcome parameters include re-operations of the abdominal wall, intestinal fistula, surgical site infections (SSI), and mortality. Kaplan-Meier analysis for hernia-free survival, adjusted Poisson regression analysis for re-operations and adjusted regression analysis for chronic SSI was performed.

RESULTS

Hernia-free survival was significantly higher in the mesh group compared to the no mesh group (P = 0.005). Fewer re-operations were necessary in the mesh group compared to the no mesh group (adjusted incidence risk ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.93, P = 0.032). No difference in SSI, intestinal fistula, and mortality was observed between groups. Chronic SSI was observed in 7 (10%) patients in the mesh group (n = 3 [6.7%] with polypropylene mesh and 4 [28.6%] with polyester mesh). The risk for chronic SSI was significantly higher if a polyester mesh was used when compared to a polypropylene mesh (adjusted odds ratio 8.69, 95% CI 1.30-58.05, P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Implantation of a polypropylene but not polyester-based mesh in patients with FD decreases incisional hernia with a low rate of mesh-related morbidity.

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.

Abdominal wall integrity after open abdomen: long-term results of vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM)

PURPOSE

The open abdomen has become a standard technique in the management of critically ill patients undergoing surgery for severe intra-abdominal conditions. Negative pressure and mesh-mediated fascial traction are commonly used and achieve low fistula rates and high fascial closure rates. In this study, long-term results of a standardised treatment approach are presented.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients who underwent OA management for different indications at our institution from 2006 to 2013 were enrolled. All patients were treated under a standardised algorithm that uses a combination of vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction. Structured follow-up assessments were offered to patients and included a medical history, a clinical examination and abdominal ultrasonography. The data obtained were statistically analysed.

RESULTS

The fascial closure rate was 74 % in an intention-to-treat analysis and 89 % in a per-protocol analysis. The fistula rate was 1.8 %. Thirty-four patients attended follow-up. The median follow-up was 46 months (range 12-88 months). Incisional hernias developed in 35 %. Patients with hernias needed more operative procedures (10.3 vs 3.4, p = 0.03) than patients without hernia formation. A Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) of 31.1 was calculated. Patients with symptomatic hernias (NAS of 2-10) had a significantly lower mean POSAS score (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM) seem to result in low complication rates and high fascial closure rates. Abdominal wall reconstruction, which is a challenging and complex procedure and causes considerable patient discomfort, can thus be avoided in the majority of cases. Available results are based on studies involving only a small number of cases. Multi-centre studies and registry-based data are therefore needed to validate these findings.

Synthetic meshes in the treatment of postoperative fascial dehiscence of the spine

BACKGROUND

A fascial dehiscence after spinal instrumentation is usually located at the mechanically stressed interscapular thoracic spine and often causes cosmetic impairment and pain. However, therapy options remain barely discussed. Synthetic meshes have been successfully used in the treatment of abdominal hernias.

OBJECTIVE

It was hypothesized that synthetic meshes are a successful treatment option for spinal fascial dehiscence.

METHODS

This retrospective study of a prospective database investigated all consecutive patients who received a synthetic mesh for a fascial dehiscence of the spine between 2010 and 2014 after prior spinal instrumentation. Primary outcomes were healing of the fascial dehiscence, recurrence, infection, revision, subjective satisfaction on a visual analog scale (VAS), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Among others, secondary outcomes consisted of seroma formation and return to work. The evaluated risk factors consisted of the body mass index (BMI), outer abdominal fat (OAF), back tissue, smoking, immunomodulatory therapy, preoperative radiation dose, and instrumented levels.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients with a mean follow up of 24 months were included. Every fascial dehiscence successfully healed with the synthetic mesh and there were no recurrences, infections or revisions. The mean subjective satisfaction level was VAS 7.3 and the mean ODI was 26%. Five (31%) patients had a seroma postoperatively, but did not show any differences in the outcome (e.g. ODI of 28%). In the patient group < 65 years (n = 12), all but two patients, who had work restrictions due to other diseases, regained at least some capacity to work. Worse ODI scores were found for patients with increased BMI, OAF, back tissue, cortisone therapy, instrumented levels, preoperative radiation dose, and for smokers.

CONCLUSION

Synthetic meshes are a successful treatment option for spinal fascial dehiscence, even seemingly in patients with a higher risk profile such as obese and immunocompromised patients as well as in revision procedures. They are associated with respectable cosmetic results, pain relief and clinical outcome. Postoperatively, it is recommended to leave drains for more than five to seven days in order to avoid seroma formation and to avoid weight training for six weeks. Further prospective, comparative studies are recommended.

European Society of Coloproctology consensus on the surgical management of intestinal failure in adults

Intestinal failure (IF) is a debilitating condition of inadequate nutrition due to an anatomical and/or physiological deficit of the intestine. Surgical management of patients with acute and chronic IF requires expertise to deal with technical challenges and make correct decisions. Dedicated IF units have expertise in patient selection, operative risk assessment and multidisciplinary support such as nutritional input and interventional radiology, which dramatically improve the morbidity and mortality of this complex condition and can beneficially affect the continuing dependence on parenteral nutritional support. Currently there is little guidance to bridge the gap between general surgeons and specialist IF surgeons. Fifteen European experts took part in a consensus process to develop guidance to support surgeons in the management of patients with IF. Based on a systematic literature review, statements were prepared for a modified Delphi process. The evidence for each statement was graded using Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. The current paper contains the statements reflecting the position and practice of leading European experts in IF encompassing the general definition of IF surgery and organization of an IF unit, strategies to prevent IF, management of acute IF, management of wound, fistula and stoma, rehabilitation, intestinal and abdominal reconstruction, criteria for referral to a specialist unit and intestinal transplantation.

Techniques for Abdominal Wall Closure after Damage Control Laparotomy: From Temporary Abdominal Closure to Early/Delayed Fascial Closure-A Review

Open abdomen (OA) has been an effective treatment for abdominal catastrophes in traumatic and general surgery. However, management of patients with OA remains a formidable task for surgeons. The central goal of OA is closure of fascial defect as early as is clinically feasible without precipitating abdominal compartment syndrome. Historically, techniques such as packing, mesh, and vacuum-assisted closure have been developed to assist temporary abdominal closure, and techniques such as components separation, mesh-mediated traction, bridging fascial defect with permanent synthetic mesh, or biologic mesh have also been attempted to achieve early primary fascial closure, either alone or in combined use. The objective of this review is to present the challenges of these techniques for OA with a goal of early primary fascial closure, when the patient's physiological condition allows.

Wound dehiscence: outcome comparison for sutured and mesh reconstructed patients

PURPOSE

Treatment guidelines for abdominal wound dehiscence (WD) are lacking. The primary aim of the study was to compare suture to mesh repair in WD patients concerning incisional hernia incidence. Secondary aims were to compare recurrent WD, morbidity, mortality and long-term abdominal wall complaints.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 46 consecutive patients operated for WD between January 2010 and August 2012 was conducted. Physical examination and a questionnaire enquiry were performed in January 2013.

RESULTS

Six patients were treated by vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM) before definitive closure. Three patients died early resulting in 23 patients closed by suture and 20 by mesh repair. Five sutured, but no mesh repair patients had recurrent WD (p = 0.051) with a mortality of 60 %. Finally, 18 sutured and 21 mesh repair patients were eligible for follow-up. The incidence of incisional hernia was higher for the sutured patients (53 vs. 5 %, p = 0.002), while mesh repair patients had a higher short-term morbidity rate (76 vs. 28 %, p = 0.004). Abdominal wall complaints were rare in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Suture of WD was afflicted with a high incidence of recurrent WD and incisional hernia formation. Mesh repair overcomes these problems at the cost of more wound complications. VAWCM seems to be an alternative for treating contaminated patients until definitive closure is possible. Long-term abdominal wall complaints are uncommon after WD treatment.

Comparison of Outcomes between Early Fascial Closure and Delayed Abdominal Closure in Patients with Open Abdomen: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Up to the present, the optimal time to close an open abdomen remains controversial. This study was designed to evaluate whether early fascial abdominal closure had advantages over delayed approach for open abdomen populations. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched until April 2013. Search terms included “open abdomen,” “abdominal compartment syndrome,” “laparostomy,” “celiotomy,” “abdominal closure,” “primary,” “delayed,” “permanent,” “fascial closure,” and “definitive closure.” Open abdomen was defined as “fail to close abdominal fascia after a laparotomy.” Mortality, complications, and length of stay were compared between early and delayed fascial closure. In total, 3125 patients were included for final analysis, and 1942 (62%) patients successfully achieved early fascial closure. Vacuum assisted fascial closure had no impact on pooled fascial closure rate. Compared with delayed abdominal closure, early fascial closure significantly reduced mortality (12.3% versus 24.8%, RR, 0.53, P < 0.0001) and complication incidence (RR, 0.68, P < 0.0001). The mean interval from open abdomen to definitive closure ranged from 2.2 to 14.6 days in early fascial closure groups, but from 32.5 to 300 days in delayed closure groups. This study confirmed clinical advantages of early fascial closure over delayed approach in treatment of patients with open abdomen.

“Acute postoperative open abdominal wall”: Nosological concept and treatment implications

The so-called “burst abdomen” has been described for many years and is a well-known clinical condition, whereas the concept of the “open abdomen” is relatively new. In clinical practice, both nosological entities are characterized by a complex spectrum of symptoms apparently disconnected, which in many cases poses a great challenge for surgical repair. In order to assess the management of these disorders in a more comprehensive and integral fashion, the concept of “acute postoperative open abdominal wall” (acute POAW) is presented, which in turn can be divided into “intentional” or planned acute POAW and “unintentional” or unplanned POAW. The understanding of the acute POAW as a single clinical process not only allows a better optimization of the therapeutic approach in the surgical repair of abdominal wall-related disorders, but also the stratification and collection of data in different patient subsets, favoring a better knowledge of the wide spectrum of conditions involved in the surgical reconstruction of the abdominal wall.

Current status of the open abdomen treatment for intra-abdominal infection

The open abdomen has become an important approach for critically ill patients who require emergent abdominal surgical interventions. This treatment, originating from the concept of damage control surgery, was first applied in severe traumatic patients. The ultimate goal is to achieve formal abdominal fascial closure by several attempts and adjuvant therapies (fluid management, nutritional support, skin grafting, etc.). Up to the present, open abdomen therapy becomes matured and is multistage-approached in the management of patients with severe trauma. However, its application in patients with intra-abdominal infection still presents great challenges due to critical complications and poor clinical outcomes. This review focuses on the specific use of the open abdomen in such populations and detailedly introduces current concerns and advanced progress about this therapy.

Long-term outcome study in patients with abdominal wound dehiscence: a comparative study on quality of life, body image, and incisional hernia

OBJECTIVE

Long-term quality of life and body image of patients with abdominal wound dehiscence were assessed.

METHODS

Thirty-seven patients with abdominal wound dehiscence from a prospectively followed cohort of 967 patients (2007-2009) were reviewed. Patients completed the Short Form 36 quality of life questionnaire and Body Image Questionnaire and participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. For each patient, four controls were matched by age and gender. Analyses were adjusted for age, gender, comorbidity, and follow-up length.

RESULTS

Of the 37 patients with abdominal wound dehiscence, 23 were alive after a mean follow-up of 40 months (range 33-49 months). Nineteen patients developed incisional hernias (83 %). Patients with abdominal wound dehiscence reported significantly lower scores for physical and mental component summaries (p = 0.038, p = 0.013), general health (p = 0.003), mental health (p = 0.011), social functioning (p = 0.002), and change (p = 0.034). No differences were found for physical functioning (p = 0.072), role physical (p = 0.361), bodily pain (p = 0.133), vitality (p = 0.150), and role emotional (p = 0.138). Patients with abdominal wound dehiscence reported lower body image scores (median 16.5 vs. 18, p = 0.087), cosmetic scores (median 13 vs. 16, p = 0.047), and total body image scores (median 30 vs. 34, p = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

At long-term follow-up, patients with abdominal wound dehiscence demonstrated a high incidence of incisional hernia, low body image, and low quality of life.

Incisional hernia rate after open abdomen treatment with negative pressure and delayed primary fascia closure

PURPOSE

Various techniques for delayed primary fascia closure have been published in patients treated with open abdomen (OA) and application of negative pressure, but to date, no data are available on incisional hernia (IH) rate. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to investigate the long-term outcome of this patient population with special interest in IH development.

METHODS

Two hundred and nine consecutive patients, 90(43 %) female, were treated at our institution for various abdominal emergencies involving OA from June 2006 to June 2011. Mean age was 63(16-92) years. The indication was abdominal sepsis in 155(74 %) patients, ischemia in 24(12 %) and other reasons in 30(14 %). Hospital mortality was 21 %(n = 44); and planned ventral hernia was 7 %(n = 15); and mortality until follow-up was 16 %(n = 25), and 9 %(n = 13) patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 112 patients for evaluation of IH development.

RESULTS

The rate of IH for patients with OA and delayed primary fascia closure was overall 35 % at a median (range) follow-up time of 26(12-81) months. Mean time for development of a ventral hernia was 11 months; 21(57 %) patients underwent surgery for symptomatic hernia (2 emergency operations for incarceration). Kaplan-Meier estimate for 5 years gave a 66 % IH rate. BMI, small bowel as source of infection and rapid adsorbable interrupted suture were identified risk factors.

CONCLUSION

The rate of IH after open abdomen treatment with delayed primary fascia closure is high with a running suture with slow absorbable suture material showing the best results.