Prognostic Factors for Enteroatmospheric Fistula in Open Abdomen Treated with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: a Multicentre Experience

Optimal tentative abdominal closure for open abdomen: a multicenter retrospective observational study (OPTITAC study)

BACKGROUND

Primary fascia closure is often difficult following an open abdomen (OA). While negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is recommended to enhance successful primary fascia closure, the optimal methods and degree of negative pressure remain unclear. This study aimed to elucidate optimal methods of NPWT as a tentative abdominal closure for OA to achieve primary abdominal fascia closure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective, cohort study of adults who survived OA greater than 48 h was conducted in 12 institutions between 2010 and 2022. The achievement of primary fascia closure and incidence of enteroatmospheric fistula were examined based on methods (homemade, superficial NPWT kit, or open-abdomen kit) or degrees of negative pressure (<50, 50-100, or >100 mmHg). A generalized estimating equation was used to adjust for age, BMI, comorbidities, etiology for laparotomy requiring OA, vital signs, transfusion, severity of critical illness, and institutional characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 279 included patients, 252 achieved primary fascia closure. A higher degree of negative pressure (>100 mmHg) was associated with fewer primary fascia closures than less than 50 mmHg [OR, 0.18 (95% CI: 0.50-0.69), P =0.012] and with more frequent enteroatmospheric fistula [OR, 13.83 (95% CI: 2.30-82.93)]. The methods of NPWT were not associated with successful primary fascia closure. However, the use of the open-abdomen kit was related to a lower incidence of enteroatmospheric fistula [OR, 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00-0.50)].

CONCLUSION

High negative pressure (>100 mmHg) should be avoided in NPWT during tentative abdominal closure for OA.

An alternative negative pressure treatment for enteroatmospheric fistula resulting from small intestinal leakage caused by incision dehiscence

Background

To investigate the efficacy of an alternative negative pressure treatment for the treatment of enteroatmospheric fistula transformed from small intestinal leakage due to incision dehiscence after abdominal surgery.

Methods

Patients with an enteroatmospheric fistula from small intestinal leakage owing to incision dehiscence following abdominal surgery between January 2010 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

A total of 83 patients (mean age: 38.3 ± 11.6 years; Body mass index: 19.9 ± 2.2 kg/m2) were enrolled. Of the 83 patients, 59 (71.1 %) achieved fistula closure. High-output fistula (Hazard ratio = 0.48; 95 % Confidence interval: 0.29-0.81; P = 0.006) and abdominal wall thickness >2 cm (Hazard ratio = 2.76; 95 % Confidence interval: 1.35-5.67; P = 0.006) were identified as factors affecting fistula closure. Lastly, 11/83 (13.3 %) patients exhibited re-dehiscence.

Conclusion

Appropriately applying the alternative negative pressure treatment may enable fistula closure in patients with enteroatmospheric fistula resulting from small intestinal leakage caused by incision dehiscence.

Spontaneous enteroatmospheric fistula in a patient with COVID-19 disease

Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease patients present with upper respiratory symptoms; however, these patients may show gastrointestinal symptoms on arrival at the hospital. This finding requires an abdominal physical examination and imaging for 33% of patients. Enteroatmospheric fistulas (EAF) may form a connection between the external environment and the gastrointestinal tract and usually presents various difficulties in controlling the disease without surgical intervention. Its management requires a high level of clinical expertise to control and treat the fistula. In this case report, spontaneous EAF and its management are presented in a 65-year-old morbidly obese female patient who spontaneously had EAF during her hospitalization for COVID-19.

Negative pressure wound therapy for managing the open abdomen in non-trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Management of the open abdomen is a considerable burden for patients and healthcare professionals. Various temporary abdominal closure techniques have been suggested for managing the open abdomen. In recent years, negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been used in some centres for the treatment of non-trauma patients with an open abdomen; however, its effectiveness is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on primary fascial closure for managing the open abdomen in non-trauma patients in any care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2021 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL EBSCO Plus. To identify additional studies, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NPWT with any other type of temporary abdominal closure (e.g. Bogota bag, Wittmann patch) in non-trauma patients with open abdomen in any care setting. We also included RCTs that compared different types of NPWT systems for managing the open abdomen in non-trauma patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed the study selection process, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies, involving 74 adults with open abdomen associated with various conditions, predominantly severe peritonitis (N = 55). The mean age of the participants was 52.8 years; the mean proportion of women was 39.2%. Both RCTs were carried out in single centres and were at high risk of bias. Negative pressure wound therapy versus Bogota bag We included one study (40 participants) comparing NPWT with Bogota bag. We are uncertain whether NPWT reduces time to primary fascial closure of the abdomen (NPWT: 16.9 days versus Bogota bag: 20.5 days (mean difference (MD) -3.60 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.16 to 0.96); very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events (fistulae formation, NPWT: 10% versus Bogota: 5% (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 20.33); very low-certainty evidence) compared with the Bogota bag. We are also uncertain whether NPWT reduces all-cause mortality (NPWT: 25% versus Bogota bag: 35% (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.88); very low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay compared with the Bogota bag (NPWT mean: 28.5 days versus Bogota bag mean: 27.4 days (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI -13.39 to 15.59); very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report the proportion of participants with successful primary fascial closure of the abdomen, participant health-related quality of life, reoperation rate, wound infection, or pain. Negative pressure wound therapy versus any other type of temporary abdominal closure There were no randomised controlled trials comparing NPWT with any other type of temporary abdominal closure. Comparison of different negative pressure wound therapy devices We included one study (34 participants) comparing different types of NPWT systems (Suprasorb CNP system versus ABThera system). We are uncertain whether the Suprasorb CNP system increases the proportion of participants with successful primary fascial closure of the abdomen compared with the ABThera system (Suprasorb CNP system: 88.2% versus ABThera system: 70.6% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.14); very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain whether the Suprasorb CNP system reduces adverse events (fistulae formation, Suprasorb CNP system: 0% versus ABThera system: 23.5% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.92); very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (Suprasorb CNP system: 5.9% versus ABThera system: 17.6% (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.89); very low-certainty evidence), or reoperation rate compared with the ABThera system (Suprasorb CNP system: 100% versus ABThera system: 100% (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12); very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report the time to primary fascial closure of the abdomen, participant health-related quality of life, length of hospital stay, wound infection, or pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available trial data, we are uncertain whether NPWT has any benefit in primary fascial closure of the abdomen, adverse events (fistulae formation), all-cause mortality, or length of hospital stay compared with the Bogota bag. We are also uncertain whether the Suprasorb CNP system has any benefit in primary fascial closure of the abdomen, adverse events, all-cause mortality, or reoperation rate compared with the ABThera system. Further research evaluating these outcomes as well as participant health-related quality of life, wound infection, and pain outcomes is required. We will update this review when data from the large studies that are currently ongoing are available.

Management of the patient with the open abdomen

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was to outline the management of the patient with the open abdomen.

RECENT FINDINGS

An open abdomen approach is used after damage control laparotomy, to decrease risk for postsurgery intra-abdominal hypertension, if reoperation is likely and after primary abdominal decompression.Temporary abdominal wall closure without negative pressure is associated with higher rates of intra-abdominal infection and evisceration. Negative pressure systems improve fascial closure rates but increase fistula formation. Definitive abdominal wall closure should be considered once oedema has subsided and the patient has stabilized. Delayed abdominal closure after trauma (>24-48 h) is associated with less achievement of fascial closure and more complications. Protective lung ventilation should be employed early, particularly if respiratory compromise is evident. Conservative fluid management and less sedation may decrease delirium and increase definitive abdominal closure rates. Extubation may be performed before definitive abdominal closure in selected patients. Antibiotic therapy should be brief, targeted and guideline concordant. Survival depends on the underlying disease, the closure method and the course of hospitalization.

SUMMARY

Changes in the treatment of patients with the open abdomen include negative temporary closure, conservative fluid management, early protective lung ventilation, decreased sedation and extubation before abdominal closure in selected patients.

Manejo del abdomen abierto en el paciente crítico en un centro de nivel III de Popayán

Introducción. El abdomen abierto es un recurso útil para el tratamiento de pacientes con patología abdominal compleja, con potencial de complicaciones. El objetivo de este estudio fue adaptar la guía de World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) 2018, en un hospital de nivel III de atención de la ciudad de Popayán, Colombia, y comparar los resultados obtenidos con los previos a su implementación. Métodos. Estudio cuasi-experimental en dos mediciones de pacientes con abdomen abierto y estancia en cuidado crítico, durante los meses de abril a octubre de los años 2018 y 2019, antes y después de la adaptación con el personal asistencial de la guía de práctica clínica WSES 2018. Se utilizó estadística descriptiva, prueba de Chi cuadrado y se empleó el software SPSS V.25. Resultados. Se incluyeron 99 pacientes críticos, con una edad media de 53,2 años, con indicación de abdomen abierto por etiología traumática en el 28,3 %, infecciosa no traumática en el 32,3 % y no traumática ni infecciosa en el 37,4 %. La mortalidad global fue de 25,3 %, de los cuales, un 68 % se debieron a causas ajenas a la patología abdominal. Las complicaciones postoperatorias se presentaron en 10 pacientes con infección de sitio operatorio y 9 pacientes con fístula enterocutánea. El uso del doble Viaflex se implementó en un 63,6 %, logrando un cierre de la pared abdominal en el 79,8 % de los casos (p=0,038). Conclusión. El abdomen abierto requiere de un abordaje multidisciplinar. El uso de doble Viaflex es una herramienta simple y efectiva. La implementación de la guía disminuyó el porcentaje de mortalidad, los días de abdomen abierto y la estancia en cuidados intensivos.

Predictive factors of mortality in open abdomen for abdominal sepsis: a retrospective cohort study on 113 patients

Over the past few years, the open abdomen (OA) as a part of Damage Control Surgery (DCS) has been introduced as a surgical strategy with the intent to reduce the mortality of patients with severe abdominal sepsis. Aims of our study were to analyze the OA effects on patients with abdominal sepsis and identify predictive factors of mortality. Patients admitted to our institution with abdominal sepsis requiring OA from 2010 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were mortality, morbidity and definitive fascial closure (DFC). Comparison between groups was made via univariate and multivariate analyses. On 1474 patients operated for abdominal sepsis, 113 (7.6%) underwent OA. Male gender accounted for 52.2% of cases. Mean age was 68.1 ± 14.3 years. ASA score was > 2 in 87.9%. Mean BMI, APACHE II score and Mannheim Peritonitis Index were 26.4 ± 4.9, 15.3 ± 6.3, and 22.6 ± 7.3, respectively. A negative pressure wound system technique was used in 47% of the cases. Overall, mortality was 43.4%, morbidity 76.6%, and DFC rate was 97.8%. Entero-atmospheric fistula rate was 2.2%. At multivariate analysis, APACHE II score (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.05-1.32; p = 0.005), Frailty Clinical Scale (OR 4.66; 95% CI 3.19-6.12; p < 0.0001) and ASA grade IV (OR 7.86; 95% CI 2.18-28.27; p = 0.002) were significantly associated with mortality. OA seems to be a safe and reliable treatment for critically ill patients with severe abdominal sepsis. Nonetheless, in these patients, co-morbidity and organ failure remain the major obstacles to a better prognosis.

The Significance of Visceral Protection in Preventing Enteroatmospheric Fistulae During Open Abdomen Treatment in Patients With Secondary Peritonitis: A Propensity Score-matched Case-control Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the influence of a visceral protective layer (VPL) on the formation of enteroatmospheric fistulae (EAF) in open abdomen treatment (OAT) for peritonitis.

BACKGROUND

EAF formation is a severe complication of OAT. Despite the widespread use of OAT, there are no robust evidence-based recommendations for preventing EAF.

METHODS

A total of 120 peritonitis patients with secondary peritonitis as a result of a perforation of a hollow viscus or anastomotic insufficiency who had undergone OAT were included, and 14 clinical parameters were recorded in prospective OAT databases at 2 tertiary referral centers. For this analysis, patients with a VPL were assigned to the treatment group and those without a VPL to the control group. Propensity Score (PS) matching was performed. Known risk factors in OAT such as malignant disease, mortality, emergency operation, OAT duration, and fascial closure were matching variables. The influence of VPL on EAF formation was statistically evaluated using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

With 34 patients in each group, no notable differences were identified with regard to age, sex, underlying disease, mortality, emergency operation, fascial closure, and OAT duration. Overall, a mortality rate of 22.1% for OAT due to peritonitis was observed. Mean OAT duration was approximately 9 days, and secondary fascial closure was achieved in more than two-thirds of all patients. Fascial traction was used in more than 75% of cases. EAF formation was significantly more frequent in the control group (EAF formation: VPL group 2.9% vs control 26.5%; P = 0.00). In the final regression analysis, the use of VPL resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of EAF formation (odds ratio 0.08; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.71, P = 0.02), which translates to a relative risk reduction of 89.1%.

CONCLUSION

VPL effectively prevents EAF formation during OAT in patients with peritonitis. We recommend the consistent use of VPL as part of a standardized OAT treatment algorithm.

Lessons Learned in 11 Years of Experience With Open Abdomen Treatment With Negative-Pressure Therapy for Various Abdominal Emergencies

Introduction: Open abdomen (OA) treatment with negative-pressure therapy (NPT) was initiated for perforated diverticulitis and subsequently extended to other abdominal emergencies. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the indications, procedures, duration of NPT, and the outcomes of all our patients. Methods: All consecutive patients treated with intra-abdominal NPT from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: A total of 438 patients (44% females) with a median (range) age of 66 (12-94) years, BMI of 25 (14-48) kg/m², and ASA class I, II, III, and IV scores of 36 (13%), 239 (55%), 95 (22%), and 3(1%), respectively, were treated with NPT. The indication for surgery was primary bowel perforation in 163 (37%), mesenteric ischemia in 53 (12%), anastomotic leakage in 53 (12%), ileus in 53 (12%), postoperative bowel perforation/leakage in 32 (7%), abdominal compartment in 15 (3%), pancreatic fistula in 13 (3%), gastric perforation in 13 (3%), secondary peritonitis in 11 (3%), burst abdomen in nine (2%), biliary leakage in eight (2%), and other in 15 (3%) patients. A damage control operation without reconstruction in the initial procedure was performed in 164 (37%) patients. The duration of hospital and intensive care stay were, median (range), 28 (0-278) and 4 (0-214) days. The median (range) duration of operation was 109 (22-433) min and of NPT was 3(0-33) days. A trend to shorter duration of NPT was observed over time and in the colonic perforation group. The mean operating time was shorter when only blind ends were left in situ, namely 110 vs. 133 min (p = 0.006). The mortality rates were 14% at 30 days, 21% at 90 days, and 31% at 1 year. An entero-atmospheric fistula was observed in five (1%) cases, most recently in 2014. Direct fascia closure was possible in 417 (95%) patients at the end of NPT, but least often (67%, p = 0.00) in patients with burst abdomen. During follow-up, hernia repair was observed in 52 (24%) of the surviving patients. Conclusion: Open abdomen treatment with NPT is a promising concept for various abdominal emergencies, especially when treated outside normal working hours. A low rate of entero-atmospheric fistula formation and a high rate of direct fascia closure were achieved with dynamic approximation of the fascia edges. The authors recommend an early-in and early-out strategy as the prolongation of NPT by more than 1 week ends up in a frozen abdomen and does not improve abdominal sepsis.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery

AIM

There is a requirement for an expansive and up to date review of the management of emergency colorectal conditions seen in adults. The primary objective is to provide detailed evidence-based guidelines for the target audience of general and colorectal surgeons who are responsible for an adult population and who practise in Great Britain and Ireland.

METHODS

Surgeons who are elected members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Emergency Surgery Subcommittee were invited to contribute various sections to the guidelines. They were directed to produce a pathology-based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence-based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after two votes were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

All aspects of care (excluding abdominal trauma) for emergency colorectal conditions have been included along with 122 recommendations for management.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence-based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of emergency colorectal conditions and should serve as practical text for clinicians managing colorectal conditions in the emergency setting.

Preoperative physical functional status affects the long-term outcomes of elderly patients with open abdomen

Aim

The mortality rates among elderly patients with open abdomen (OA) are high, and pre-existing comorbidities could affect the outcomes. However, long-term prognosis remains uncertain. We examined long-term outcomes in elderly patients with OA, focusing on physical functional status.

Methods

We undertook a retrospective cohort study between 2007 and 2017 at a single institution. Patients with OA who were aged ≥65 years were categorized into two groups: "good preoperative functional status" group (GFG) and "poor preoperative functional status" group (PFG). The GFG was defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/World Health Organization performance status (PS) 0-1, whereas PFG was defined as PS 2-4. The primary outcomes were survival and PS 2 years following the initial surgery.

Results

Of the 53 participants, 38 and 15 were assigned to the GFG and PFG, respectively. The PFG (median age, 81 years) was older than the GFG (median age, 75.5 years; P = 0.040). The 2-year survival rate was 39.5% in GFG and 6.7% in PFG, and Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significant difference (P = 0.022). Among all patients, the PS at 2 years was worse than that at discharge (P = 0.007). Preoperative PS was correlated with 2-year survival (P = 0.003), whereas age and pre-existing comorbidities were not.

Conclusion

The long-term outcomes of elderly patients with OA are affected by the preoperative physical functional status. Functional status deteriorates in a time-dependent manner. Therefore, surgery requiring OA must be carefully considered for elderly patients with PS 2 or higher.

Open abdomen treatment for complicated intra-abdominal infection patients with gastrointestinal fistula can reduce the mortality

To evaluate the effect of the open abdomen (OA) and closed abdomen (CA) approaches for treating intestinal fistula with complicated intra-abdominal infection (IFWCIAI), and analyze the risk factors in OA treatment.IFWCIAI is associated with high mortality rates and healthcare costs, as well as longer postoperative hospital stay. However, OA treatment has also been linked with increased mortality and development of secondary intestinal fistula.A total of 195 IFWCIAI patients who were operated over a period of 7 years at our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were divided into the OA group (n = 112) and CA group (n = 83) accordingly, and the mortality rates, hospital costs, and hospital stay duration of both groups were compared. In addition, the risk factors in OA treatment were also analyzed.OA resulted in significantly lower mortality rates (9.8% vs 30.1%, P < .001) and hospital costs ($11721.40 ± $9368.86 vs $20365.36 ± $21789.06, P < .001) compared with the CA group. No incidences of secondary intestinal fistula was recorded and the duration of hospital stay was similar for both groups (P = .151). Delayed OA was an independent risk factor of death following OA treatment (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.316; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.068-1.623, P = .010), whereas early enteral nutrition (EN) exceeding 666.67 mL was a protective factor (HR = 0.996; 95% CI = 0.993-0.999, P = .018). In addition, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans were the main pathogens responsible for the death of patients after OA treatment.OA decreased mortality rates and hospital costs of IFWCIAI patients, and did not lead to any secondary fistulas. Early OA and EN also reduced mortality rates.

Chinese Trauma Surgeon Association for management guidelines of vacuum sealing drainage application in abdominal surgeries-Update and systematic review

Vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) is frequently used in abdominal surgeries. However, relevant guidelines are rare. Chinese Trauma Surgeon Association organized a committee composed of 28 experts across China in July 2017, aiming to provide an evidence-based recommendation for the application of VSD in abdominal surgeries. Eleven questions regarding the use of VSD in abdominal surgeries were addressed: (1) which type of materials should be respectively chosen for the intraperitoneal cavity, retroperitoneal cavity and superficial incisions? (2) Can VSD be preventively used for a high-risk abdominal incision with primary suture? (3) Can VSD be used in severely contaminated/infected abdominal surgical sites? (4) Can VSD be used for temporary abdominal cavity closure under some special conditions such as severe abdominal trauma, infection, liver transplantation and intra-abdominal volume increment in abdominal compartment syndrome? (5) Can VSD be used in abdominal organ inflammation, injury, or postoperative drainage? (6) Can VSD be used in the treatment of intestinal fistula and pancreatic fistula? (7) Can VSD be used in the treatment of intra-abdominal and extra-peritoneal abscess? (8) Can VSD be used in the treatment of abdominal wall wounds, wound cavity, and defects? (9) Does VSD increase the risk of bleeding? (10) Does VSD increase the risk of intestinal wall injury? (11) Does VSD increase the risk of peritoneal adhesion? Focusing on these questions, evidence-based recommendations were given accordingly. VSD was strongly recommended regarding the questions 2-4. Weak recommendations were made regarding questions 1 and 5-11. Proper use of VSD in abdominal surgeries can lower the risk of infection in abdominal incisions with primary suture, treat severely contaminated/infected surgical sites and facilitate temporary abdominal cavity closure.

Open abdomen and entero-atmospheric fistulae: An interim analysis from the International Register of Open Abdomen (IROA)

INTRODUCTION

No definitive data describing associations between cases of Open Abdomen (OA) and Entero-atmospheric fistulae (EAF) exist. The World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the Panamerican Trauma Society (PTS) thus analyzed the International Register of Open Abdomen (IROA) to assess this question.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective analysis of adult patients enrolled in the IROA.

RESULTS

Among 649 adult patients with OA 58 (8.9%) developed EAF. Indications for OA were peritonitis (51.2%) and traumatic-injury (16.8%). The most frequently utilized temporary abdominal closure techniques were Commercial-NPWT (46.8%) and Bogotà-bag (21.9%). Mean OA days were 7.9 ± 18.22. Overall mortality rate was 29.7%, with EAF having no impact on mortality. Multivariate analysis associated cancer (p = 0.018), days of OA (p = 0.003) and time to provision-of-nutrition (p = 0.016) with EAF occurrence.

CONCLUSION

Entero-atmospheric fistulas are influenced by the duration of open abdomen treatment and by the nutritional status of the patient. Peritonitis, intestinal anastomosis, negative pressure and oral or enteral nutrition were not risk factors for EAF during OA treatment.