Open abdomen with negative pressure device vs primary abdominal closure for the management of surgical abdominal sepsis: a retrospective review

Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Part 2-Emergency Laparotomy: Intra- and Postoperative Care

BACKGROUND

This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care.

METHODS

Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL.

RESULTS

Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Vacuum-assisted laparostomy in severe abdominal trauma and urgent abdominal pathology with compartment syndrome, peritonitis and sepsis: Comparison with other options for multistage surgical treatment (systematic review and meta-analysis)

Background. The concept of multistage surgical treatment of patients has been established in surgery rather recently and therefore the discussions on the expediency of using a particular surgical technique in a specific situation still continue. Vacuum-assisted laparostomy is being widely implemented into clinical practice for the treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome, severe peritonitis and abdominal trauma, but the indications and advantages of this method are not clearly defined yet.

The aim of the study. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the comparison of the effectiveness of vacuum-assisted laparostomy with various variants of relaparotomy and laparostomy without negative pressure therapy in  the  treatment of patients with urgent abdominal pathology and abdominal trauma complicated by widespread peritonitis, sepsis or compartment syndrome.

Material and methods. A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses”. We carried out the analysis of non-randomized (since January 2007 until August 6, 2022) and randomized (without time limits for the start of the study and until August 6, 2022) studies from the electronic databases eLibrary, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Google Scholar Search, Mendeley.

Results. Vacuum-assisted laparostomy causes statistically significant shortening of the time of treatment of patients in the ICU and in hospital and a decrease in  postoperative mortality compared to other variants of laparostomy without vacuum assistance.

Conclusion. To obtain data of a higher level of evidence and higher grade of recommendations, it is necessary to further conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on randomized clinical studies. 

Use of Temporary Abdominal Closure in Non-Trauma Surgery: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Damage control surgery in trauma is widely used but the evidence for the use of laparostomy in non-trauma abdominal emergencies is limited. This study aimed to characterise outcomes in emergency abdominal surgery by comparing laparostomy to one-stage laparotomy for patients of similar illness severity.

METHODS

A retrospective study of adult patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery and post-operative intensive care stay was performed between 2016 and 2020 at a major Australian metropolitan hospital. Case selection was from a prospectively maintained database, and case notes were reviewed. Patients having delayed abdominal closure were compared with those having one-stage abdominal closure. The primary outcome was odds of in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), overall hospital LOS, definitive stoma rate and discharge destination. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for potentially confounding variables.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighteen patients met inclusion criteria (80 laparostomy and 138 non-laparostomy). The most common indications for laparostomy were bowel ischaemia (41.3%), sepsis (26.3%) and physiological instability (22.5%). There was no evidence of difference in odds of in-hospital mortality between groups (adjusted OR = 1.67, CI: 0.85-3.28; p = 0.138). Patients requiring laparostomy had a slightly longer median ICU LOS (4 vs. 3 days; p < 0.001), similar median hospital LOS (19 vs. 14 days, p = 0.245) and similar discharge destination. There was no difference in stoma rate (35.0% vs. 35.5%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with standard one-stage laparotomy, laparostomy resulted in similar odds of in-hospital mortality in emergency abdominal surgery patients requiring intensive care.

Prognostic significance of comorbidities in patients with diffuse peritonitis

Background

Diffuse peritonitis is a severe disease with high mortality and morbidity rates. Therapy is fundamentally surgical. It is important to identify patients with a significantly worse prognosis and patients who may benefit from more aggressive surgical and postsurgical care such as NPWT (Narrow Pressure Wound Therapy) prior to surgery. We tried to identify a determining factor for higher morbidity and mortality rates resulting in a worse prognosis among initial data and patient comorbidities in order to focus therapy towards more aggressive surgical management.

Methods

In a group of 274 patients with diffuse peritonitis, we evaluated the type of peritonitis according to effusion, origin, surgery type, and the age, gender, and present comorbidities of the patients, and compared it with the overall mortality, morbidity rate, and duration of hospitalization.

Results

Patients without comorbidities had a significantly lower burden in both morbidity and mortality. We recorded the highest difference in mortality in patients with two or more comorbidities, with pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases, with malignancy and hypertension. Morbidity was found to be significantly exacerbated by the presence of two or more severe diseases, cardiovascular disease, malignancy, and hypertension.

Conclusion

We identified age, effusion type, and the presence of comorbidities as key factors for the prognosis of our patients—the morbidity and mortality rates were substantially increased in patients with two or more comorbidities, as well as by the presence of cardiovascular disease, malignancy, and hypertension. A more aggressive approach should be considered to improve the prognosis in these patients.

Study of damage control strategy for non-traumatic diseases: a single-center observational study

BACKGROUND

Damage control strategy (DCS) has been introduced not only for trauma but also for acute abdomen, but its indications and usefulness have not been clarified. We examined clinical characteristics of patients who underwent DCS and compared clinical characteristics and results with and without DCS in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

We targeted a series of endogenous abdominal diseases in Kansai Medical University Hospital from April 2013 to March 2019. Clinical characteristics of 26 patients who underwent DCS were examined. Then, clinical characteristics and results were compared between the DCS group (n = 26) and non-DCS group (n = 31) in 57 patients with septic shock during the same period.

RESULTS

All 26 patients who underwent DCS had septic shock, low mean arterial pressure (MAP) before the start of surgery, and required high-dose norepinephrine administration intraoperatively. Their discharge mortality rate was 12%. Among the patients with septic shock, the DCS group had a higher SOFA score (P = 0.008) and MAP was lower preoperatively, but it did not increase even with intraoperative administration of large amounts of fluid replacement and vasoconstrictor. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality and discharge mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DCS may be useful in patients with severe septic shock.

Damage-control surgery in patients with nontraumatic abdominal emergencies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

After the successful implementation in trauma, damage-control surgery (DCS) is being increasingly used in patients with nontraumatic emergencies. However, the role of DCS in the nontrauma setting is not well defined. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of DCS on mortality in patients with nontraumatic abdominal emergencies.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was done using PubMed. Original articles addressing nontrauma DCS were included. Two meta-analyses were performed, comparing (1) mortality in patients undergoing nontrauma DCS versus conventional surgery (CS) and (2) the observed versus expected mortality rate in the DCS group. Expected mortality was derived from Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score, and Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity scores.

RESULTS

A total of five nonrandomized prospective and 16 retrospective studies were included. Nontrauma DCS was performed in 1,238 and nontrauma CS in 936 patients. Frequent indications for surgery in the DCS group were (weighted proportions) hollow viscus perforation (28.5%), mesenteric ischemia (26.5%), anastomotic leak and postoperative peritonitis (19.6%), nontraumatic hemorrhage (18.4%), abdominal compartment syndrome (17.8%), bowel obstruction (15.5%), and pancreatitis (12.9%). In meta-analysis 1, including eight studies, mortality was not significantly different between the nontrauma DCS and CS group (risk difference, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, -0.06 to 0.24). Meta-analysis 2, including 14 studies, revealed a significantly lower observed than expected mortality rate in patients undergoing nontrauma DCS (risk difference, -0.18; 95% confidence interval, -0.29 to -0.06).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis revealed no significantly different mortality in patients undergoing nontrauma DCS versus CS. However, observed mortality was significantly lower than the expected mortality rate in the DCS group, suggesting a benefit of the DCS approach. Based on these two findings, the effect of DCS on mortality in patients with nontraumatic abdominal emergencies remains unclear. Further prospective investigation into this topic is warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.

Prognostic Significance of Simple Scoring Systems in the Prediction of Diffuse Peritonitis Morbidity and Mortality

Introduction: Diffuse peritonitis is a serious disease. It is often addressed within urgent management of an unstable patient in shock. The therapy consists of treatment of the source of peritonitis, decontamination of the abdominal cavity, stabilization of the patient and comprehensive resuscitation care in an intensive care unit. A number of scoring systems to determine patient prognosis are available, but most of them require complex input data, making their practical application a substantial problem. Objective: Our aim was to assess simple scoring systems within a cohort, evaluate the level of mortality, morbidity, and duration of hospital stay, followed by a comparison of the acquired data with the literature and determination of an easily implementable scoring system for use in clinical practice. Material and Methods: We evaluated a group of patients with diffuse peritonitis who underwent surgery in the 2015–2019 period. Medical history, surgical findings, and paraclinical examinations were used as the input for four scoring systems commonly used in practice—MPI, qSOFA, ECOG, and ASA. We compared the results between the systems and with the literature. Results: Our cohort included 274 patients diagnosed with diffuse peritonitis. Mortality was 22.6%, morbidity 73.4%, with a 25.2 day average duration of hospital stay. Mortality and morbidity increased with rising MPI and qSOFA, well-established scoring systems, but also with rising ASA and ECOG, similarly to MPI and qSOFA. Conclusions: The utilized scoring systems correlated well with the severity of the condition and with predicted mortality and morbidity as reported in the literature. Simple scoring systems primarily used in other indications (i.e., ASA and ECOG) have a similar predictive value in our cohort as commonly used systems (MPI, qSOFA). We recommend them in routine clinical practice due to their simplicity.

Diagnosis and Management of Intraabdominal Infection: Guidelines by the Chinese Society of Surgical Infection and Intensive Care and the Chinese College of Gastrointestinal Fistula Surgeons

The Chinese guidelines for IAI presented here were developed by a panel that included experts from the fields of surgery, critical care, microbiology, infection control, pharmacology, and evidence-based medicine. All questions were structured in population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes format, and evidence profiles were generated. Recommendations were generated following the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system or Best Practice Statement (BPS), when applicable. The final guidelines include 45 graded recommendations and 17 BPSs, including the classification of disease severity, diagnosis, source control, antimicrobial therapy, microbiologic evaluation, nutritional therapy, other supportive therapies, diagnosis and management of specific IAIs, and recognition and management of source control failure. Recommendations on fluid resuscitation and organ support therapy could not be formulated and thus were not included. Accordingly, additional high-quality clinical studies should be performed in the future to address the clinicians' concerns.

Superior primary fascial closure rate and lower mortality after open abdomen using negative pressure wound therapy with continuous fascial traction

BACKGROUND

Open abdomen (OA) is a useful option for treatment strategy in many acute abdominal catastrophes. A number of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) methods are used with limited number of comparative studies. The present study was done to examine risk factors for failed delayed primary fascial closure (DPFC) and risk factors for mortality in patients treated with OA.

METHODS

This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of the hospital records of all consecutive patients treated with OA during the years 2009 to 2016 at five tertiary referral hospitals and three secondary referral centers in Finland.

RESULTS

Six hundred seventy-six patients treated with OA were included in the study. Vacuum-assisted closure with continuous mesh-mediated fascial traction (VACM) was the most popular TAC method used (N = 398, 59%) followed by VAC (N = 128, 19%), Bogota bag (N = 128, 19%), and self-designed methods (N = 22, 3%). In multivariate analysis, enteroatmospheric fistula and the number of needed TAC changes increased the risk for failed DPFC (odds ratio [OR], 8.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2-12.8; p < 0.001 and OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.3; p < 0.001, respectively). Instead, VACM and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm as cause for OA both decreased the risk for failed DPFC (OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.0-0.3; p < 0.001 and OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.7; p = 0.012). The overall mortality rate was 30%. In multivariate analysis for mortality, multiorgan dysfunction (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.6-3.6; p < 0.001), and increasing age (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.0-9.7; p < 0.001) predicted increased mortality. Institutional large annual patient volume (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.6; p < 0.001) and ileus and postoperative peritonitis in comparison to severe acute pancreatitis associated with decreased mortality (OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.4; p < 0.001; OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; p = 0.009). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed increased survival in patients treated with VACM in comparison with other TAC methods (LogRank p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

We report superior role for VACM methodology in terms of successful primary fascial closure and increased survival in patients with OA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Comparison of negative-pressure incision management system in wound dehiscence: A prospective, randomized, observational study

Wound dehiscence is a significant problem faced by surgeons after major abdominal surgery. In this study, it was aimed to select the best incision management system to keep the incision edges together and prevent wound opening, and infection by protecting the incision. In this study, 60 patients who underwent abdominal surgery were evaluated regarding their risk of wound dehiscence. In our clinic, high-risk cases of abdominal surgery are performed, the risk factors being ischemia along the incision line, dirty and contaminated wound, obesity, tension on the suture line, traumatization of the wound site, age at onset (> 65), body mass index (BMI) > 30, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), immunosuppressive drug users. A prospective study protocol was planned after ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status class assignment. Patients were divided into three groups: patients who underwent a postoperative negative-pressure therapy dressing, patients who underwent subcutaneous aspiration drainage, and patients who received standard dressing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the decompensation, surgical site infection, seroma, hospital stay and costs and to evaluate the results in the postoperative period. Sixty patients were randomized (n = 20, for each group). Thirty-one (51%) of the patients were male, and the mean age was 64.3 ± 8.9 (46-85). The mean BMI was 30.45 ± 7.2. There was no statistically significant difference (p≥0.05) between groups in terms of sex, age, and BMI. The ASA score and surgical interventions were similar between the groups. Wound dehiscence rate was 25% (n = 8), 20% (n = 6) and 3% (n = 1) for the Standard Dressing (SD), Aspiration Drainage (AD) and Negative-Pressure (NP) groups, respectively (p <0.017). Duration of hospitalization was 16.45 ± 6.6, 14.3 ± 7.4 and 8.95 ± 2.8 days (p <0.001) for SD, AD and NP groups, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups regarding other variables (p≥0.05 for all variables). Negative-pressure wound treatment is an easy, fast and practical technique which reduces lateral tension and swelling. It provides perfusion support and helps to protect the surgical field against external sources of infection.

Vacuum-Assisted Wound Closure with Mesh-Mediated Fascial Traction Achieves Better Outcomes than Vacuum-Assisted Wound Closure Alone: A Comparative Study

Background

Open abdomen (OA) permits the application of damage control surgery principles when abdominal trauma, sepsis, severe acute peritonitis and abdominal compartmental syndrome (ACS) occur.

Methods

Non-traumatic patients treated with OA between January 2010 and December 2015 were identified in a prospective database, and the data collected were retrospectively reviewed. Patients’ records were collected from charts and the surgical and intensive care unit (ICU) registries. The Acosta “modified” technique was used to achieve fascial closure in vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM) patients. Sex, age, simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), abdominal compartmental syndrome (ACS), cardiovascular disease (CVD) and surgical technique performed were evaluated in a multivariate analysis for mortality and fascial closure prediction.

Results

Ninety-six patients with a median age of 69 (40–78) years were included in the study. Sixty-nine patients (72%) underwent VAWCM. Forty-one patients (68%) achieved primary fascia closure: two patients (5%) were treated with VAWC (37 median days) versus 39 patients (95%) who were treated with VAWCM (10 median days) (p = 0.0003). Forty-eight patients underwent OA treatment due to ACS, and 24 patients (50%) survived compared to 36 patients (75%) from the “other reasons” group (p = 0.01). The ACS group required longer mechanical ventilator support (p = 0.006), length of stay in hospital (p = 0.005) and in ICU (p = 0.04) and had higher SAPS II scores (p = 0.0002).

Conclusions

The survival rate was 62%. ACS (p = 0.01), SAPS II (p = 0.004), sex (p = 0.01), pre-existing CVD (p = 0.0007) and surgical technique (VAWC vs VAWCM) (p = 0.0009) were determined to be predictors of mortality. Primary fascial closure was obtained in 68% of cases. VAWCM was found to grant higher survival and primary fascial closure rate.

Mini-thoracostomy with vacuum-assisted closure: a minimally invasive alternative to open-window thoracostomy

Thoracostomy is a common treatment option for patients with stage III pleural empyema who do not tolerate pulmonary decortication. However, thoracostomy is considered mutilating because it involves a thoracic stoma, the closure of which can take years or require further surgery. A new, minimally invasive technique that uses the vacuum-assisted closure has been proposed as an alternative to thoracostomy. This study aims to analyze the safety and effectiveness of mini-thoracostomy with vacuum-assisted closure in an initial sample of patients.

Open abdomen critical care management principles: resuscitation, fluid balance, nutrition, and ventilator management

The term "open abdomen" refers to a surgically created defect in the abdominal wall that exposes abdominal viscera. Leaving an abdominal cavity temporarily open has been well described for several indications, including damage control surgery and abdominal compartment syndrome. Although beneficial in certain patients, the act of keeping an abdominal cavity open has physiologic repercussions that must be recognized and managed during postoperative care. This review article describes these issues and provides guidelines for the critical care physician managing a patient with an open abdomen.

Management of intra-abdominal infections: recommendations by the WSES 2016 consensus conference

This paper reports on the consensus conference on the management of intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) which was held on July 23, 2016, in Dublin, Ireland, as a part of the annual World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) meeting. This document covers all aspects of the management of IAIs. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation recommendation is used, and this document represents the executive summary of the consensus conference findings.