Management of the tense abdomen or difficult abdominal closure after operation for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Logistic regression analysis of risk factors for intra-abdominal hypertension after giant ventral hernia repair: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) is a classical complication after giant ventral hernia surgery and may lead to abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). Assessment of risk factors and prevention of IAH/ACS are essential for hernia surgeons.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study including 58 giant ventral hernia patients in our center between Jan 1, 2017, and Mar 1, 2022, we recorded age, gender, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary heart disease (CHD), hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), hypoproteinemia, body mass index (BMI), the ratio of hernia sac volume to abdominal cavity volume (HSV/ACV), defect width, tension reduction procedure (TRP), positive fluid balance (PFB) and IAH of these patients and analyzed the data using univariate and multivariate logistic regression to screen the risk factors for IAH after surgery.

RESULTS

The multivariate analysis showed that HSV/ACV ≥ 25%, hypoproteinemia, and PFB were independent risk factors for the occurrence of IAH after giant ventral hernia repair (P = 0.025, 0.016, 0.017, respectively). We did not find any correlation between postoperative IAH and the patient's age, gender, COPD, CHD, hypertension, T2DM, BMI, defect width, TRP, and PFB.

CONCLUSION

Identifying risk factors is of great significance for the early identification and prevention of IAH/ACS. We found that HSV/ACV ≥ 25%, hypoproteinemia, and PFB were independent risk factors for IAH after giant ventral hernia repair.

The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients: WSES guidelines

Damage control resuscitation may lead to postoperative intra-abdominal hypertension or abdominal compartment syndrome. These conditions may result in a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle leading to severe physiologic derangements and multiorgan failure unless interrupted by abdominal (surgical or other) decompression. Further, in some clinical situations, the abdomen cannot be closed due to the visceral edema, the inability to control the compelling source of infection or the necessity to re-explore (as a "planned second-look" laparotomy) or complete previously initiated damage control procedures or in cases of abdominal wall disruption. The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients has been proposed to be effective in preventing or treating deranged physiology in patients with severe injuries or critical illness when no other perceived options exist. Its use, however, remains controversial as it is resource consuming and represents a non-anatomic situation with the potential for severe adverse effects. Its use, therefore, should only be considered in patients who would most benefit from it. Abdominal fascia-to-fascia closure should be done as soon as the patient can physiologically tolerate it. All precautions to minimize complications should be implemented.

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.

How to identify patients at risk of abdominal compartment syndrome after surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in the operating room: A pilot study

Objectives Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is poorly identified in surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm and an early management is crucial. The aim of this study was to validate how many risk factors were needed to predict ACS. Secondary objectives were to assess its prevalence and the 30-day mortality. Methods All patients operated for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm during 5 years were included. An independent committee performed a retrospective diagnosis of ACS. Eight criteria were selected from the literature, and corresponded to pre- and intraoperative period: anemia (hemoglobin lower than 10 g/dL), prolonged shock (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg more than 18 min), preoperative cardiac arrest, obesity (body mass index > 30), massive fluid resuscitation (≥3500 mL per hour for at least 1 h) and transfusions (>10 units packed blood red cell since the beginning of the treatment), severe hypothermia (≤33℃), acidosis (pH < 7.2). Sensitivity and specificity were assessed for each number of criteria. Results Eight patients were ACS+ and 28 ACS-, with three criteria for ACS+ and 1.5 for ACS- ( p = 0.002). Three criteria among the eight selected criteria have the best cutoff for sensitivity and specificity (75% and 82%) with a positive predictive value of 54% and a negative predictive value of 92%. The prevalence of ACS was 17%. The 30-day mortality in ACS+ tended to be higher than in ACS- ( p = 0.108). Conclusion The present results suggest that patients with an ACS seemed to have higher mortality and the threshold of three factors among eight specific factors is enough to predict this.

Negative-pressure wound therapy for prevention and treatment of surgical-site infections after vascular surgery

BACKGROUND

Indications for negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in vascular surgical patients are expanding. The aim of this review was to outline the evidence for NPWT on open and closed wounds.

METHODS

A PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library search from 2007 to June 2016 was performed combining the medical subject headings terms 'wound infection', 'abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)', 'fasciotomy', 'vascular surgery' and 'NPWT' or 'VAC'.

RESULTS

NPWT of open infected groin wounds was associated with shorter duration of wound healing by 47 days, and was more cost-effective than alginate dressings in one RCT. In one RCT and six observational studies, NPWT-related major bleeding and graft preservation rates were 0-10 and 83-100 per cent respectively. One retrospective comparative study showed greater wound size reduction per day, fewer dressing changes, quicker wound closure and shorter hospital stay with NPWT compared with gauze dressings for lower leg fasciotomy. NPWT and mesh-mediated fascial traction after AAA repair and open abdomen was associated with high primary fascial closure rates (96-100 per cent) and low risk of graft infection (0-7 per cent). One retrospective comparative study showed a significant reduction in surgical-site infection, from 30 per cent with standard wound care to 6 per cent with closed incisional NPWT.

CONCLUSION

NPWT has a central role in open and infected wounds after vascular surgery; the results of prophylactic care of closed incisions are promising.

Editor's Choice - Abdominal Compartment Syndrome After Surgery for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Nationwide Population Based Study

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

The understanding of abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS), and its importance for outcome, has increased over time. The aim was to investigate the incidence and clinical consequences of ACS after open (OR) and endovascular repair (EVAR) for ruptured and intact infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA and iAAA, respectively).

METHODS

In 2008, ACS and decompression laparotomy (DL) were introduced as variables in the Swedish vascular registry (Swedvasc), offering an opportunity to study this complication in a prospective, population based design. Operations carried out in the period 2008-13 were analysed. Of 6,612 operations, 1,341 (20.3%) were for rAAA (72.0% OR) and 5,271 (79.7%) for iAAA (41.9% OR). In all, 3,171 (48.0%) were operated on by OR and 3,441 by EVAR. Prophylactic open abdomen (OA) treatment was validated through case records. Cross-matching with the national population registry secured valid mortality data.

RESULTS

After rAAA repair, ACS developed in 6.8% after OR versus 6.9% after EVAR (p = 1.0). All major complications were more common after ACS (p < .001). Prophylactic OA was performed in 10.7% of patients after OR. For ACS, DL was performed in 77.3% after OR and 84.6% after EVAR (p = .433). The 30 day mortality rate was 42.4% with ACS and 23.5% without ACS (p < .001); at 1 year it was 50.7% versus 31.8% (p < .001). After iAAA repair, ACS developed in 1.6% of patients after OR versus 0.5% after EVAR (p < .001). Among those with ACS, DL was performed in 68.6% after OR and in 25.0% after EVAR (p = .006). Thirty day mortality was 11.5% with ACS versus 1.8% without it (p < .001); at 1 year it was 27.5% versus 6.3% (p < .001). When ACS developed, renal failure, multiple organ failure, intestinal ischaemia, and prolonged intensive care were much more frequent (p < .001). Morbidity and mortality were similar, regardless of primary surgical technique (OR/EVAR/iAAA/rAAA).

CONCLUSION

ACS and OA were common after treatment for rAAA. ACS is a devastating complication after surgery for rAAA and iAAA, irrespective of operative technique, emphasizing the importance of prevention.

Amended Classification of the Open Abdomen

BACKGROUND

In 2009, a classification system for the open abdomen was introduced. The aim of such a classification is to aid the (1) description of the patient's clinical course; (2) standardization of clinical guidelines for guiding open abdomen management; and (3) facilitation of comparisons between studies and heterogeneous patient populations, thus serving as an aid in clinical research.

METHODS

As part of the revision of the definitions and clinical guidelines performed by the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome, this 2009 classification system was amended following a review of experiences in teaching and research and published as part of updated consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines in 2013. Among 29 articles citing the 2009 classification system, nine were cohort studies. They were reviewed as part of the classification revision process. A total of 542 patients (mean: 60, range: 9-160) had been classified. Two problems with the previous classification system were identified: the definition of enteroatmospheric fistulae, and that an enteroatmospheric fistula was graded less severe than a frozen abdomen.

RESULTS

The following amended classification was proposed: Grade 1, without adherence between bowel and abdominal wall or fixity of the abdominal wall (lateralization), subdivided as follows: 1A, clean; 1B, contaminated; and 1C, with enteric leak. An enteric leak controlled by closure, exteriorization into a stoma, or a permanent enterocutaneous fistula is considered clean. Grade 2, developing fixation, subdivided as follows: 2A, clean; 2B, contaminated; and 2C, with enteric leak. Grade 3, frozen abdomen, subdivided as follows: 3A clean and 3B contaminated. Grade 4, an established enteroatmospheric fistula, is defined as a permanent enteric leak into the open abdomen, associated with granulation tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors believe that, with these changes, the requirements on a functional and dynamic classification system, useful in both research and training, will be fulfilled. We encourage future investigators to apply the system and report on its merits and constraints.

Temporary Abdominal Closure After Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review of Contemporary Observational Studies

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper was to review the literature on temporary abdominal closure (TAC) after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.

METHODS

This was a systematic review of observational studies. A PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane search from 2007 to July 2015 was performed combining the Medical Subject Headings "aortic aneurysm" and "temporary abdominal closure", "delayed abdominal closure", "open abdomen", "abdominal compartment syndrome", "negative pressure wound therapy", or "vacuum assisted wound closure".

RESULTS

Seven original studies were found. The methods used for TAC were the vacuum pack system with (n = 1) or without (n = 2) mesh bridge, vacuum assisted wound closure (VAWC; n = 1) and the VAWC with mesh mediated fascial traction (VACM; n = 3). The number of patients included varied from four to 30. Three studies were exclusively after open repair, one after endovascular aneurysm repair, and three were mixed series. The frequency of ruptured AAA varied from 60% to 100%. The primary fascial closure rate varied from 79% to 100%. The median time to closure of the open abdomen was 10.5 and 17 days in two prospective studies with a fascial closure rate of 100% and 96%, respectively; the inclusion criterion was an anticipated open abdomen therapy time ≥5 days using the VACM method. The graft infection rate was 0% in three studies. No patient with long-term open abdomen therapy with the VACM in the three studies was left with a planned ventral hernia. The in hospital survival rate varied from 46% to 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

A high fascial closure rate without planned ventral hernia is possible to achieve with VACM, even after long-term open abdomen therapy. There are, however, few publications reporting specific results of open abdomen treatment after AAA repair, and there is a need for randomized controlled trials to determine the most efficient and safe TAC method during open abdomen treatment after AAA repair.

WSES position paper on vascular emergency surgery

Trauma, both blunt and penetrating, is extremely common worldwide, as trauma to major vessels. The management of these patients requires specialized surgical skills and techniques of the trauma surgeon. Furthermore few other surgical emergencies require immediate diagnosis and treatment like a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). Mortality of patients with a rAAA reaches 85 %, with more than half dying before reaching the hospital. These are acute events demanding immediate intervention to save life and limb and precluding any attempt at transfer or referral. It is the purpose of this position paper to discuss neck, chest, extremities and abdominal trauma, bringing to light recent evidence based data as well as expert opinions; besides, in this paper we present a review of the recent literature on rAAA and we discuss the rationale for transfer to referral center, the role of preoperative imaging and the pros and cons of Endoluminal repair of rAAA (REVAR) versus Open Repair (OR).

Abdominal compartment syndrome associated with endovascular and open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is a known complication of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair and can occur with either endovascular (EVAR) or open repair. We hypothesize that the underlying mechanism for the development of ACS may differ for patients treated with EVAR or open operation.

METHODS

All patients who presented with rAAA at a tertiary care medical center between January 2005 and December 2010 were included in the study. Demographic factors, type of repair (open vs EVAR), development of ACS, intraoperative and postoperative fluid requirements, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and morbidity and mortality were recorded. Student t-test and Fisher exact test were performed. A P value < .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients, 62 men and 11 women with an average age of 70.5 years, were treated for rAAA. Forty-four (60%) underwent open repair; 29 (40%) had EVAR. Overall mortality was 42% (31 of 73), with mortality being 31% (9 of 29) in EVAR and 48% (21 of 44) in open repair. ACS developed in 21 patients (29%), more frequently in open repair than in EVAR (15 of 44 [34%] vs 6 of 29 [21%]; P = NS). Mortality was higher in patients who developed ACS compared with those without ACS (13 of 21 [62%] vs 17 of 52 [33%]; P = .022). This finding was especially pronounced in the EVAR group, in which mortality in patients with ACS was 83% (5 of 6) compared with 17% (4 of 23) without ACS (P = .005). Intraoperative fluid requirements were significantly higher in EVAR patients who developed ACS compared with those without ACS, including packed red blood cells (5600 mL vs 1100 mL; P < .0001), total blood products (9300 mL vs 1500 mL; P < .001), crystalloid (11,200 mL vs 4500 mL; P < .001), and estimated blood loss (5000 mL vs 660 mL; P = .006). In patients treated with open repair, there were no significant differences in intraoperative fluid requirements between those who developed ACS and those without ACS. However, patients who developed ACS after open repair required significantly more crystalloid on the first and second postoperative days (first postoperative day, 8300 mL vs 5600 mL [P = .01]; second postoperative day, 6500 mL vs 3800 mL [P = .004]).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the development of ACS after repair of rAAA is associated with increased mortality, especially in EVAR-treated patients. The higher intraoperative blood and blood product requirements associated with ACS in EVAR patients suggest that one potential cause of early ACS is continued hemorrhage from lumbar and inferior mesenteric vessels through the ruptured aneurysm sac. Hence, open ligation of such vessels should be considered in patients developing early ACS after EVAR for rAAA.

[Open treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome after contained aortic aneurysm rupture]

For the first time in Hungary, a patient with abdominal compartment syndrome after contained aortic aneurysm rupture was treated successfully implementing open abdomen treatment with vacuum-assisted wound closure (V.A.C.) and delayed abdominal wall closure with mesh.

CASE REPORT

Contained aortic aneurysm rupture was diagnosed by CT angiography in a 59-year-old patient. After the acute reconstruction of the ruptured aorta (by an open procedure with aorto-aortic Dacron interposition) during the closure of the abdominal cavity the patient could not be effectively ventilated due to high intra-abdominal pressure caused by the severe oedema of the abdominal wall and the hematoma in the retroperitoneal space. In this situation, we decided upon open abdominal treatment using V.A.C. After regular changes of V.A.C. the abdomen was closed with DualMesh and three weeks later the patient was discharged home in good condition.

CONCLUSION

In our case, abdominal closure was not implemented after the reconstruction of the ruptured aortic aneurysm due to the extensive oedema. The complications of abdominal compartment syndrome were prevented with the open treatment. Based on our experience and on the results of the international literature we highly recommend open abdominal treatment with V.A.C. in case of abdominal compartment syndrome.

Management of abdominal compartment syndrome and the open abdomen

OBJECTIVES

The management of the abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and the open abdomen (OA) are important to improve survival after major vascular surgery, in particular ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). The aim is to summarize contemporary knowledge in this field.

METHODS

The consensus definitions of the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (WSACS) that were published in 2006 and the clinical practice guidelines published in 2007 were updated in 2013. Structured clinical questions were formulated (modified Delphi method), and the evidence base to answer those questions was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.

RESULTS

Most of the previous definitions were kept untouched, or were slightly modified. Four new definitions were added, including a definition of OA and of lateralization of the abdominal wall, an important clinical problem to approach during prolonged OA treatment. A classification system of the OA was added. Seven recommendations were formulated, in summary: Trans-bladder intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) should be monitored in patients at risk. Protocolized monitoring and management are recommended, and decompression laparotomy if ACS. When OA, protocolized efforts to obtain an early abdominal fascial closure, and strategies utilizing negative pressure wound therapy should be used, versus not. In most cases the evidence was graded as weak or very weak. In six of the structured clinical questions, no recommendation could be made.

CONCLUSION

This review summarizes changes in definitions and management guidelines of relevance to vascular surgery, and data on the incidence of ACS after open and endovascular aortic surgery.

“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.

Intra-peritoneal microdialysis and intra-abdominal pressure after endovascular repair of ruptured aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate intra-peritoneal (ip) microdialysis after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) in patients developing intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH), requiring abdominal decompression.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 16 patients with rAAA treated with an emergency EVAR were followed up hourly for intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), urine production and ip lactate, pyruvate, glycerol and glucose by microdialysis, analysed only at the end of the study. Abdominal decompression was performed on clinical criteria, and decompressed (D) and non-decompressed (ND) patients were compared.

RESULTS

The ip lactate/pyruvate (l/p) ratio was higher in the D group than in the ND group during the first five postoperative hours (mean 20 vs. 12), p = 0.005 and at 1 h prior to decompression compared to the fifth hour in the ND group (24 vs. 13), p = 0.016. Glycerol levels were higher in the D group during the first postoperative hours (mean 274.6 vs. 121.7 μM), p = 0.022. The IAP was higher only at 1 h prior to decompression in the D group compared to the ND group at the fifth hour (mean 19 vs. 14 mmHg).

CONCLUSIONS

Ip l/p ratio and glycerol levels are elevated immediately postoperatively in patients developing IAH leading to organ failure and subsequent abdominal decompression.