The Double-Lumen Irrigation-Suction Tube in The Management of Incisional Surgical Site Infection After Enterocutaneous Fistula Excisions: An Observational Study

Comparative efficacy of sequential treatment and open abdomen approaches for corrosive abdominal hemorrhage due to inadequate drainage of duodenal leakage: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Intra-abdominal bleeding resulting from inadequate drainage of duodenal leakage (DL) is typically caused by the corrosiveness of duodenal fluid. Open abdomen (OA) treatment addresses both the drainage and bleeding simultaneously. However, a sequential treatment (ST) approach involving hemostasis through transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) followed by percutaneous drainage of source control has emerged as an alternative method. This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of ST in cases of DL-induced intra-abdominal bleeding.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 151 participants diagnosed with DL-induced intra-abdominal bleeding from January 2004 to December 2010, and January 2013 to December 2021. The ST and OA groups were established based on the treatment method applied. Propensity score-matching (PSM) matched patients in the ST group with those in the OA group.

RESULTS

Among the 151 patients, 61 (40.4%) died within 90 days after the bleeding episode. ST was associated with a lower mortality rate (28.2% vs. 51.3% adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-0.68; P = 0.003) compared to OA. Following PSM, ST remained the only factor associated with reduced mortality (OR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.13-0.75; P = 0.009). Moreover, ST demonstrated a higher rate of initial hemostasis success before (90.1% [64/71] vs. 77.5% [62/80]; adjusted OR = 2.84; 95% CI 1.07-7.60; P = 0.04) and after PSM (94.4% [51/54] vs. 77.8% [42/54], adjusted OR = 3.85; 95% CI 2.15-16.82; P = 0.04). Additionally, ST was associated with a lower incidence of rebleeding within 90 days after the initial bleeding, before (7 vs. 23; adjusted OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.18-0.92; P = 0.03) and after PSM (5 vs. 14; adjusted OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.15-0.93; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Applying ST involving TAE and subsequent percutaneous drainage might be superior to OA in lowering the mortality in DL-induced intra-abdominal hemorrhage.

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.

Effect of placing double-lumen irrigation-suction tube on closure of anastomotic defect following rectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the effect of placement of double-lumen irrigation-suction tubes (DLIST) on the closure of anastomotic defect (AD) after rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

The study was carried out at two centers managed by one surgeon, both adopted the same treatments. Patients with postoperative AD after rectal cancer surgery from January 2011 to June 2020 were eligible and were divided into a passive drainage (PD) group and a DLIST group according to whether the PD, placed in the rectal cancer surgery, had been replaced with the DLIST. The effect of DLIST on the AL was evaluated.

RESULT

There distributed 76 patients in the DLIST group and 52 in the PD group. A higher closure rate was reported in the DLIST group (46 patients in DLIST group, for a closure rate of 60.5%, and 21 patients in PD group, for a closure rate of 40.4%. HR = 3.05; 95% CI: 1.79-5.19; P < 0.001). Both length of stay and costs of the treatment in the DLIST group were lower (54 days [interquartile range, IQR: 41-17] days vs. 112 days [IQR: 66-27] days, P = 0.005; and $18,721 [IQR: $14,982-4,960] vs. $40,840 [IQR: $20,932-50,529], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Placement of DLIST might serve as an effective method for treating AD following rectal cancer surgery. In comparison with PD, it costs lower to apply DLIST in the treatment of AD and the length of stay is shorter.

The Effect of Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy with Instillation Compared to Current Standard Care on Wound Closure Time of Infected Wounds: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Infected wounds extend healing time and are associated with higher treatment costs than noninfected wounds. Several observational studies indicate that negative-pressure wound therapy with instillation can effectively reduce bacterial bioburden and improve wound healing. Only a few randomized trials with small sample sizes have been published, and a meta-analysis directly comparing negative-pressure wound therapy with instillation to current standard care is lacking. It is therefore uncertain whether negative-pressure wound therapy with instillation actually improves wound healing. The authors performed a systematic review and hypothesized that negative-pressure wound therapy with instillation reduces wound closure time.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched up to December of 2020 for English studies that compare negative-pressure wound therapy with instillation-to either negative-pressure wound therapy without instillation or to other types of wound care-for the treatment of acute or chronically infected wounds. Time to wound closure was analyzed using a random effects meta-analysis in predefined subgroups according to study design and comparative wound care.

RESULTS

The authors identified 14 studies describing 1053 patients. Meta-analysis of three randomized trials shows no significant difference in time to wound closure between negative-pressure wound therapy with instillation and that without (mean difference, 0.48 day; 95 percent CI, -0.70 to 1.65; I ² = 0 percent). Data from eleven observational studies indicate that negative-pressure wound therapy with instillation reduces wound closure time (from 1.6 to 16.8 days; no pooled data). Because of imprecision and risk of bias, the available evidence provides only low-level certainty.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to support or discard the use of negative-pressure wound therapy with instillation for infected wounds. More randomized trials are needed to determine whether a beneficial effect can be substantiated.

Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical site infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Negative pressure wound therapy is one of the most common treatments for infected wounds. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy with conventional treatment methods in the treatment of surgical site infection.

DESIGN

This study is registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.

DATA SOURCES

The Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched.

METHODS

The systematic review was searched by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses method. All trials reporting the use of negative pressure wound therapy for surgical site infection treatment were included regardless of surgery type. The primary outcome measure was wound healing. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, medical costs, adverse events, and reoperation rates. Results are presented with 95% confidence intervals and report estimates as odds ratios. Heterogeneity was determined through the I² test, with I²  > 50% indicating substantial heterogeneity and p < .10 significance. The search was performed on 10 March 2020.

RESULTS

We identified 13 eligible trial comparisons, of which 2 were randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort study. Negative pressure wound therapy in surgical site infection (SSI) patients significantly increased wound healing rate, accelerated wound healing time, increased daily wound healing area, reduced hospital stay, and reduced adverse events. However, negative pressure wound therapy was associated with increased medical costs.

CONCLUSION

Negative pressure wound therapy may be more effective for the treatment of surgical site infection relative to conventional debridement, dressings and other treatments. However, further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the most optimal application of negative pressure wound therapy.

IMPACT

Negative pressure wound therapy is the best treatment strategy for surgical site infection. This study can improve medical practitioners' awareness of negative pressure wound therapy for surgical site infection, promoting the development of relevant randomized controlled trials.