Active Negative Pressure Peritoneal Therapy After Abbreviated Laparotomy: The Intraperitoneal Vacuum Randomized Controlled Trial

Managing the Open Abdomen: Selecting an Appropriate Treatment Strategy

Significance: The laparotomy is a common surgical procedure with a wide range of indications. Ideally, once the goals of surgery were achieved, the incision edges could then be approximated and the abdomen primarily closed. However, in some circumstances, it may be impossible to achieve primary closure, and instead the abdomen is intentionally left open. This review discusses the indications and objectives for the open abdomen (OA), summarizes the most common techniques for temporary abdominal closure, and illustrates treatment algorithms grounded in the current recommendations from specialty experts. Recent Advances: Still a relatively young technique, multiple strategies, and technologies have emerged to manage the OA. So too have the recommendations evolved, based on updated classifications that take wound characteristics into account. Recent studies have also brought greater clarity on recommendations for managing infection and malnutrition to support improved clinical outcomes. Critical Issues: The status of the OA can change rapidly depending on the patient's condition, the wound quality, and many other factors. Thus, there is a significant need for comprehensive treatment strategies that can be adapted to these developing circumstances. Future Directions: Treatment recommendations should be continuously updated as new technologies are introduced and old techniques fall out of use.

[Abdominal compartment syndrome in visceral surgery and intensive care medicine : Causes, prevention, detection, treatment]

An increased intra-abdominal pressure can result in a manifest abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) with significant organ damage, which is a life-threatening situation associated with a high mortality. Although the etiology is manifold and critically ill patients on the intensive care unit are particularly endangered, the disease is often not diagnosed even though the measurement of bladder pressure is available as a simple and standardized method; however, particularly the early detection of an increased intra-abdominal pressure is decisive in order to prevent the occurrence of a manifest ACS with (multi)organ failure by means of conservative measures. In cases of a conservative refractory situation, decompressive laparotomy is indicated.

Open or closed abdomen post laparotomy to control severe abdominal sepsis: a survival analysis

INTRODUCTION

severe abdominal sepsis, accompained by diffuse peritonitis, poses a significant challenge for most surgeons. It often requires repetitive surgical interventions, leading to complications and resulting in high morbidity and mortality rates. The open abdomen technique, facilitated by applying a negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT), reduces the duration of the initial surgical procedure, minimizes the accumulation of secretions and inflammatory mediators in the abdominal cavity and lowers the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome and its associated complications. Another approach is primary closure of the abdominal aponeurosis, which involves suturing the layers of the abdominal wall.

METHODS

the objective of this study is to conduct a survival analysis comparing the treatment of severe abdominal sepsis using open abdomen technique versus primary closure after laparotomy in a public hospital in the South of Brazil. We utilized data extracted from electronic medical records to perform both descriptive and survival analysis, employing the Kaplan-Meier curve and a log-rank test.

RESULTS

the study sample encompassed 75 laparotomies conducted over a span of 5 years, with 40 cases employing NPWT and 35 cases utilizing primary closure. The overall mortality rate observed was 55%. Notably, survival rates did not exhibit statistical significance when comparing the two methods, even after stratifying the data into separate analysis groups for each technique.

CONCLUSION

recent publications on this subject have reported some favorable outcomes associated with the open abdomen technique underscoring the pressing need for a standardized approach to managing patients with severe, complicated abdominal sepsis.

Damage control surgery in emergency general surgery: What you need to know

ABSTRACT

Damage-control surgery (DCS) is a strategy adopted to limit initial operative interventions in the unstable surgical patient, delaying definitive repairs and abdominal wall closure until physiologic parameters have improved. Although this concept of "physiology over anatomy" was initially described in the management of severely injured trauma patients, the approaches of DCS have become common in the management of nontraumatic intra-abdominal emergencies.While the utilization of damage-control methods in emergency general surgery (EGS) is controversial, numerous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes, making DCS an essential technique for all acute care surgeons. Following a brief history of DCS and its indications in the EGS patient, the phases of DCS will be discussed including an in-depth review of preoperative resuscitation, techniques for intra-abdominal source control, temporary abdominal closure, intensive care unit (ICU) management of the open abdomen, and strategies to improve abdominal wall closure.

The open abdomen in trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery: comprehensive, expert, narrative review

BACKGROUND

The open abdomen is an innovation that greatly improved surgical understanding of damage control, temporary abdominal closure, staged abdominal reconstruction, viscera and enteric fistula care, and abdominal wall reconstruction. This article provides an evidence-informed, expert, comprehensive narrative review of the open abdomen in trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery.

METHODS

A group of 12 international trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery experts were invited to review current literature and important concepts surrounding the open abdomen.

RESULTS

The open abdomen may be classified using validated systems developed by a working group in 2009 and modified by the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome-The Abdominal Compartment Society in 2013. It may be indicated in major trauma, intra-abdominal sepsis, vascular surgical emergencies, and severe acute pancreatitis; to facilitate second look laparotomy or avoid or treat abdominal compartment syndrome; and when the abdominal wall cannot be safely closed. Temporary abdominal closure and staged abdominal reconstruction methods include a mesh/sheet, transabdominal wall dynamic fascial traction, negative pressure wound therapy, and hybrid negative pressure wound therapy and dynamic fascial traction. This last method likely has the highest primary fascial closure rates. Direct peritoneal resuscitation is currently an experimental strategy developed to improve primary fascial closure rates and reduce complications in those with an open abdomen. Primary fascial closure rates may be improved by early return to the operating room; limiting use of crystalloid fluids during the surgical interval; and preventing and/or treating intra-abdominal hypertension, enteric fistulae, and intra-abdominal collections after surgery. The majority of failures of primary fascial closure and enteroatmospheric fistula formation may be prevented using effective temporary abdominal closure techniques, providing appropriate resuscitation fluids and nutritional support, and closing the abdomen as early as possible.

CONCLUSION

Subsequent stages of the innovation of the open abdomen will likely involve the design and conduct of prospective studies to evaluate appropriate indications for its use and effectiveness and safety of the above components of open abdomen management.

The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial

BACKGROUND

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with negative peritoneal pressure therapy (NPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and attenuate the systemic damage from SCIAS, although there are definite risks of leaving the abdomen open whenever it might possibly be closed. This potential therapeutic paradigm is the rationale being assessed in the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL trial) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ). Initially, the COOL trial received Industry sponsorship; however, this funding mandated the use of a specific trademarked and expensive NPPT device in half of the patients allocated to the intervention (open) arm. In August 2022, the 3 M/Acelity Corporation without consultation but within the terms of the contract canceled the financial support of the trial. Although creating financial difficulty, there is now no restriction on specific NPPT devices and removing a cost-prohibitive intervention creates an opportunity to expand the COOL trial to a truly global basis. This document describes the evolution of the COOL trial, with a focus on future opportunities for global growth of the study.

METHODS

The COOL trial is the largest prospective randomized controlled trial examining the random allocation of SCIAS patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or the use of the OA with an application of an NPPT dressing. Patients are eligible if they have free uncontained intraperitoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR severely adverse predicted clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is intended to definitively inform global practice by conclusively evaluating 90-day survival. Initial recruitment has been lower than hoped but satisfactory, and the COOL steering committee and trial investigators intend with increased global support to continue enrollment until recruitment ensures a definitive answer.

DISCUSSION

OA is mandated in many cases of SCIAS such as the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome associated with closure, or a planned second look as for example part of "damage control"; however, improved source control (locally and systemically) is the most uncertain indication for an OA. The COOL trial seeks to expand potential sites and proceed with the evaluation of NPPT agnostic to device, to properly examine the hypothesis that this treatment attenuates systemic damage and improves survival. This approach will not affect internal validity and should improve the external validity of any observed results of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Institutes of Health ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ).

The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial

BACKGROUND

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with negative peritoneal pressure therapy (NPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and attenuate the systemic damage from SCIAS, although there are definite risks of leaving the abdomen open whenever it might possibly be closed. This potential therapeutic paradigm is the rationale being assessed in the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL trial) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ). Initially, the COOL trial received Industry sponsorship; however, this funding mandated the use of a specific trademarked and expensive NPPT device in half of the patients allocated to the intervention (open) arm. In August 2022, the 3 M/Acelity Corporation without consultation but within the terms of the contract canceled the financial support of the trial. Although creating financial difficulty, there is now no restriction on specific NPPT devices and removing a cost-prohibitive intervention creates an opportunity to expand the COOL trial to a truly global basis. This document describes the evolution of the COOL trial, with a focus on future opportunities for global growth of the study.

METHODS

The COOL trial is the largest prospective randomized controlled trial examining the random allocation of SCIAS patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or the use of the OA with an application of an NPPT dressing. Patients are eligible if they have free uncontained intraperitoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR severely adverse predicted clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is intended to definitively inform global practice by conclusively evaluating 90-day survival. Initial recruitment has been lower than hoped but satisfactory, and the COOL steering committee and trial investigators intend with increased global support to continue enrollment until recruitment ensures a definitive answer.

DISCUSSION

OA is mandated in many cases of SCIAS such as the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome associated with closure, or a planned second look as for example part of "damage control"; however, improved source control (locally and systemically) is the most uncertain indication for an OA. The COOL trial seeks to expand potential sites and proceed with the evaluation of NPPT agnostic to device, to properly examine the hypothesis that this treatment attenuates systemic damage and improves survival. This approach will not affect internal validity and should improve the external validity of any observed results of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Institutes of Health ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ).

The temporary abdominal closure techniques used for trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

The choice of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) method affects the prognosis of trauma patients. Previous studies on TAC are challenging to extrapolate due to data heterogeneity. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and comparison of various TAC techniques.

Methods

We accessed web-based databases for studies on the clinical outcomes of TAC techniques. Recognized techniques, including negative-pressure wound therapy with or without continuous fascial traction, skin tension, meshes, Bogota bags, and Wittman patches, were classified via a method of closure such as skin-only closure vs. patch closure vs. vacuum closure; and via dynamics of treatment like static therapy (ST) vs. dynamic therapy (DT). Study endpoints included in-hospital mortality, definitive fascial closure (DFC) rate, and incidence of intraabdominal complications.

Results

Among 1,065 identified studies, 37 papers comprising 2,582 trauma patients met the inclusion criteria. The vacuum closure group showed the lowest mortality (13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6%-19%) and a moderate DFC rate (74%; 95% CI, 67%-82%). The skin-only closure group showed the highest mortality (35%; 95% CI, 7%-63%) and the highest DFC rate (96%; 95% CI, 93%-99%). In the second group analysis, DT showed better outcomes than ST for all endpoints.

Conclusion

Vacuum closure was favorable in terms of in-hospital mortality, ventral hernia, and peritoneal abscess. Skin-only closure might be an alternative TAC method in carefully selected groups. DT may provide the best results; however, further studies are needed.

Patients with an Open Abdomen in Asian, American and European Continents: A Comparative Analysis from the International Register of Open Abdomen (IROA)

BACKGROUND

International register of open abdomen (IROA) enrolls patients from several centers in American, European, and Asiatic continent. The aim of our study is to compare the characteristics, management and clinical outcome of adult patients treated with OA in the three continents.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective analysis of adult patients enrolled in the international register of open abdomen (IROA).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02382770.

RESULTS

1183 patients were enrolled from American, European and Asiatic Continent. Median age was 63 years (IQR 49-74) and was higher in the European continent (65 years, p < 0.001); 57% were male. The main indication for OA was peritonitis (50.6%) followed by trauma (15.4%) and vascular emergency (13.5%) with differences among the continents (p < 0.001). Commercial NPWT was preferred in America and Europe (77.4% and 52.3% of cases) while Barker vacuum pack (48.2%) was the preferred temporary abdominal closure technique in Asia (p < 0.001). Definitive abdominal closure was achieved in 82.3% of cases in America (fascial closure in 90.2% of cases) and in 56.4% of cases in Asia (p < 0.001). Prosthesis were mostly used in Europe (17.3%, p < 0.001). The overall entero-atmospheric fistula rate 2.5%. Median open abdomen duration was 4 days (IQR 2-7). The overall intensive care unit and hospital length-of-stay were, respectively, 8 and 11 days (no differences between continents). The overall morbidity and mortality rates for America, Europe, and Asia were, respectively, 75.8%, 75.3%, 91.8% (p = 0.001) and 31.9%, 51.6%, 56.9% (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

There is no uniformity in OA management in the different continents. Heterogeneous adherence to international guidelines application is evident. Different temporary abdominal closure techniques in relation to indications led to different outcomes across the continents. Adherence to guidelines, combined with more consistent data, will ultimately allow to improving knowledge and outcome.

Vacuum-assisted closure versus on-demand relaparotomy in patients with secondary peritonitis-the VACOR trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Secondary peritonitis is a severe condition with a 20–32% reported mortality. The accepted treatment modalities are vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) or primary closure with relaparotomy on-demand (ROD). However, no randomised controlled trial has been completed to compare the two methods potential benefits and disadvantages.

Methods

This study will be a randomised controlled multicentre trial, including patients aged 18 years or older with purulent or faecal peritonitis confined to at least two of the four abdominal quadrants originating from the small intestine, colon, or rectum. Randomisation will be web-based to either primary closure with ROD or VAC in blocks of 2, 4, and 6. The primary endpoint is peritonitis-related complications within 30 or 90 days and one year after index operation. Secondary outcomes are comprehensive complication index (CCI) and mortality after 30 or 90 days and one year; quality of life assessment by (SF-36) after three and 12 months, the development of incisional hernia after 12 months assessed by clinical examination and CT-scanning and healthcare resource utilisation. With an estimated superiority of 15% in the primary outcome for VAC, 340 patients must be included. Hospitals in Denmark and Europe will be invited to participate.

Discussion

There is no robust evidence for choosing either open abdomen with VAC treatment or primary closure with relaparotomy on-demand in patients with secondary peritonitis. The present study has the potential to answer this important clinical question.

Trial Registration

The study protocol has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03932461). Protocol version 1.0, 9 January 2022.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-022-00427-x.

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.

Tertiary peritonitis: considerations for complex team-based care

Peritonitis, as a major consequence of hollow visceral perforation, anastomotic disruption, ischemic necrosis, or other injuries of the gastrointestinal tract, often drives acute care in the emergency department, operating room, and the ICU. Chronic critical illness (CCI) represents a devastating challenge in modern surgical critical care where successful interventions have fostered a growing cohort of patients with prolonged dependence on mechanical ventilation and other organ supportive therapies who would previously have succumbed much earlier in the acute phase of critical illness. An important subset of CCI patients are those who have survived an emergency abdominal operation, but who subsequently require prolonged open abdomen management complicated by persistent peritoneal space infection or colonization, fistula formation, and gastrointestinal (GI) tract dysfunction; these patients are described as having tertiary peritonitis (TP).The organ dysfunction cascade in TP terminates in death in between 30 and 64% of patients. This narrative review describes key-but not all-elements in a framework for the coordinate multiprofessional team-based management of a patient with tertiary peritonitis to mitigate this risk of death and promote recovery. Given the prolonged critical illness course of this unique patient population, early and recurrent Palliative Care Medicine consultation helps establish goals of care, support adjustment to changes in life circumstance, and enable patient and family centered care.

Intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in critically ill patients: A narrative review of past, present, and future steps

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Intra-abdominal hypertension is frequently present in critically ill patients and is an independent predictor for mortality. In this narrative review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of current insights into intra-abdominal pressure monitoring, intra-abdominal hypertension, and abdominal compartment syndrome. The focus of this review is on the pathophysiology, risk factors and outcome of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome, and on therapeutic strategies, such as non-operative management, surgical decompression, and management of the open abdomen. Finally, future steps are discussed, including propositions of what a future guideline should focus on.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathological intra-abdominal pressure is a continuum ranging from mild intra-abdominal pressure elevation without clinically significant adverse effects to substantial increase in intra-abdominal pressure with serious consequences to all organ systems. Intra-abdominal pressure monitoring should be performed in all patients at risk of intra-abdominal hypertension. Although continuous intra-abdominal pressure monitoring is feasible, this is currently not standard practice. There are a number of effective non-operative medical interventions that may be performed early in the patient's course to reduce intra-abdominal pressure and decrease the need for surgical decompression. Abdominal decompression can be life-saving when abdominal compartment syndrome is refractory to non-operative treatment and should be performed expeditiously. The objectives of open abdomen management are to prevent fistula and to achieve delayed fascial closure at the earliest possible time. There is still a lot to learn and change. The 2013 World Society of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome guidelines should be updated and multicentre studies should evaluate the effect of intra-abdominal hypertension treatment on patient outcome.

Bioelectrical impedance analysis-guided fluid management promotes primary fascial closure after open abdomen: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Fluid overload (FO) after resuscitation is frequent and contributes to adverse outcomes among postinjury open abdomen (OA) patients. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a promising tool for monitoring fluid status and FO. Therefore, we sought to investigate the efficacy of BIA-directed fluid resuscitation among OA patients.

METHODS

A pragmatic, prospective, randomized, observer-blind, single-center trial was performed for all trauma patients requiring OA between January 2013 and December 2017 to a national referral center. A total of 140 postinjury OA patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a BIA-directed fluid resuscitation (BIA) protocol that included fluid administration with monitoring of hemodynamic parameters and different degrees of interventions to achieve a negative fluid balance targeting the hydration level (HL) measured by BIA or a traditional fluid resuscitation (TRD) in which clinicians determined the fluid resuscitation regimen according to traditional parameters during 30 days of ICU management. The primary outcome was the 30-day primary fascial closure (PFC) rate. The secondary outcomes included the time to PFC, postoperative 7-day cumulative fluid balance (CFB) and adverse events within 30 days after OA. The Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were utilized for PFC after OA. A generalized linear regression model for the time to PFC and CFB was built.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients completed the trial (BIA, n = 66; TRD, n = 68). The BIA patients were significantly more likely to achieve PFC than the TRD patients (83.33% vs. 55.88%, P < 0.001). In the BIA group, the time to PFC occurred earlier than that of the TRD group by an average of 3.66 days (P < 0.001). Additionally, the BIA group showed a lower postoperative 7-day CFB by an average of 6632.80 ml (P < 0.001) and fewer complications.

CONCLUSION

Among postinjury OA patients in the ICU, the use of BIA-guided fluid resuscitation resulted in a higher PFC rate and fewer severe complications than the traditional fluid resuscitation strategy.

Managing the Open Abdomen in Damage Control Surgery: Should Skin-Only Closure be Abandoned?

During damage control laparotomy, surgery is abbreviated to allow for the correction of physiologic disturbances, with a plan to return to the operating theatre for definitive surgical repair. Re-entry into the abdomen is facilitated by temporary abdominal closure (TAC). Skin-only closure is one of the many techniques described for TAC Numerous sources advise against the use of this technique because of the risk of complications. This case report describes the use of skin-only closure during a damage control laparotomy. We reviewed the literature surrounding the various options for TAC to elucidate the potential role of skin-only closure after damage control laparotomy.

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.

[Laparostoma-Avoidance and treatment of complications]

The open abdomen (OA) is an established concept for treating severe abdominal diseases. The most frequent reasons for placement of an open abdomen are abdominal sepsis (e.g. from intestinal perforation or anastomotic leakage), severe abdominal organ injury and abdominal compartment syndrome. The pathophysiology is much more complex than the surgeon's eye can see in an OA. The temporary closure of the abdominal wall ensures sufficient drainage of infected ascites, protection of the intestinal loops and conditioning of the abdominal wall in order to be able carry out definitive closure of the abdominal wall at the end of the surgical treatment. Negative peritoneal pressure therapy combined with fascia traction (with or without mesh) is well-established in the management of an open abdomen.

Abdominal Decompression after Cardiac Surgery: Outcome of 42 Patients with Abdominal Compartment Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Up to 50% of patients in intensive care units develop intraabdominal hypertension (IAH) in the course of medical treatment. If not detected on time and treated adequately, IAH may develop into an abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) which is associated with a high mortality rate. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery are especially prone to develop ACS due to several risk factors including intraoperative hypothermia, fluid resuscitation and acidosis. We investigated patients who developed ACS after cardiac surgery and analyzed potential risk factors, treatment and outcome.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2016, patients with ACS after cardiac surgery requiring decompressive laparotomy were prospectively recorded. Patient characteristics, details on the cardiac surgery, mortality rate and type of treatment of the open abdomen were analyzed.

RESULTS

Incidence of ACS in cardiac surgery patients was 1.0% (n = 42/4128), with a mortality rate of 57%. Ejection fraction, Euroscore2 as well as the perfusion time are independent risk factors for the development of ACS. The outcome of patients with ACS was independent of elective versus emergency surgery, gender, age, BMI or ASA score. In the 18 surviving patients, fascial closure was achieved in 72% after a median of 9 days.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal compartment syndrome is a rare but serious complication after cardiac surgery with a high mortality rate. Independent risk factors for ACS were identified. Negative pressure wound therapy seems to promote and allow early fascia closure of the abdomen and represents therefore a likely benefit for the patient.

Secondary Peritonitis and Intra-Abdominal Sepsis: An Increasingly Global Disease in Search of Better Systemic Therapies

Secondary peritonitis and intra-abdominal sepsis are a global health problem. The life-threatening systemic insult that results from intra-abdominal sepsis has been extensively studied and remains somewhat poorly understood. While local surgical therapy for perforation of the abdominal viscera is an age-old therapy, systemic therapies to control the subsequent systemic inflammatory response are scarce. Advancements in critical care have led to improved outcomes in secondary peritonitis. The understanding of the effect of secondary peritonitis on the human microbiome is an evolving field and has yielded potential therapeutic targets. This review of secondary peritonitis discusses the history, classification, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and future directions of the management of secondary peritonitis. Ongoing clinical studies in the treatment of secondary peritonitis and the open abdomen are discussed.

Cytokine clearance in serum and peritoneal fluid of patients undergoing damage control surgery with abdominal negative pressure therapy for abdominal sepsis

Objectives

Open abdomen technique with negative pressure therapy (NPT) is widely used in patients with severe abdominal sepsis. The aim of this study was to evaluate cytokine clearance in serum and peritoneal fluid during NPT.

Methods

This prospective pilot study included six patients with severe abdominal sepsis requiring discontinuity resection and NPT for 48 h followed by planned reoperation. Cytokines (IL6, IL8, IL10, TNFalpha, and IL1beta) were measured in the serum and peritoneal fluid during index operation, on postoperative days 0, 1, and 2.

Results

Concentrations of cytokines in peritoneal fluid were higher than in serum. IL10 showed a clearance both in serum (to 16.6%, p=0.019) and peritoneal fluid (to 40.9%, p=0.014). IL6 cleared only in serum (to 24.7%, p=0.001) with persistently high levels in peritoneal fluid. IL8 remained high in both serum and peritoneal fluid. TNFalpha and IL1beta were both low in serum with wide range of high peritoneal concentrations. Only TNFalpha in peritoneal fluid showed significant differences between patients with ischemia vs. perforation (p=0.006).

Conclusions

The present pilot study suggests that cytokines display distinct patterns of clearance or persistence in the peritoneal fluid and serum over the first 48 h of treatment in severe abdominal sepsis with NPT.

Damage Control Surgery may be a Safe Option for Severe Non-Trauma Peritonitis Management: Proposal of a New Decision-Making Algorithm

BACKGROUND

Damage control surgery (DCS) has emerged as a new option in the management of non-traumatic peritonitis patients to increase survival in critically ill patients. The purpose of this study was to compare DCS with conventional strategy (anastomosis/ostomies in the index laparotomy) for severe non-traumatic peritonitis regarding postoperative complications, ostomy rate, and mortality and to propose a useful algorithm in the clinical practice.

METHODS

Patients who underwent an urgent laparotomy for non-trauma peritonitis at a single level I trauma center in Colombia between January 2003 and December 2018, were retrospectively included. We compared patients who had DCS management versus definitive initial surgical management (DISM) group. We evaluated clinical outcomes and morbidities among groups.

RESULTS

290 patients were included; 81 patients were treated with DCS and 209 patients underwent DISM. Patients treated with DCS had a worse critical status before surgery with higher SOFA score [median, DCS group: 5 (IQR: 3-8) vs. DISM group: 3 (IQR: 1-6), p < 0.001]. The length of hospital stay and overall mortality rate of DCS group were not significant statistical differences with DISM group. Complications rate related to primary anastomosis or primary ostomy was similar. There is not difference in ostomy rate among groups. At multivariate analysis, SOFA > 6 points and APACHE-II > 20 points correlated with a higher probability of DCS.

CONCLUSION

DCS in severe non-trauma peritonitis patients is feasible and safe as surgical strategy management without increasing mortality, length hospital of stay, or complications. DCS principles might be applied in the non-trauma scenarios without increase the stoma rate.

Direct Peritoneal Resuscitation: A Novel Adjunct to Damage Control Laparotomy

Direct peritoneal resuscitation is a validated resuscitation strategy for patients undergoing damage control surgery for hemorrhage, sepsis, or abdominal compartment syndrome with open abdomen and planned reexploration after a period of resuscitation in the intensive care unit. Direct peritoneal resuscitation can decrease visceral edema, normalize body water ratios, accelerate primary abdominal wall closure after damage control surgery, and prevent complications associated with open abdomen. This review article describes the physiological benefits of direct peritoneal resuscitation, how this technique fits within management priorities for the patient in shock, and procedural components in the care of open abdomen surgical patients receiving direct peritoneal resuscitation. Strategies for successful implementation of a novel multidisciplinary intervention in critical care practice are explored.

Step-up approach combined with negative pressure wound therapy for the treatment of severe necrotizing pancreatitis: a case report

A step-up approach and continuous drainage using NPWT was an effective strategy for the treatment of severe necrotizing pancreatitis. A 62-year-old woman developed severe necrotizing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, extending from the left anterior pararenal space to the interior renal pole. Endoscopic transluminal drainage and percutaneous catheter drainage were unsuccessful in controlling the disease. We proceeded with video-assisted retroperitoneal necrosectomy, at the pancreas and splenic hilum, and drainage, with two additional surgical drains located at the left inferior renal pole and, subcutaneously, at the incision wound. NPWT enhanced fluid drainage and facilitated surgical wound closure, which was infected and opened. Four subsequent endoscopic necrosectomy procedures were required, at the site of the draining fistula, to achieve complete resolution of fluid collection and wound closure.

The Bucharest ESTES consensus statement on peritonitis

INTRODUCTION

Peritonitis is still an important health problem associated with high morbidity and mortality. A multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with peritonitis may be an important factor to reduce the risks for patients and improve efficiency, outcome, and the cost of care.

METHODS

Expert panel discussion on Peritonitis was held in Bucharest on May 2017, during the 17th ECTES Congress, involving surgeons, infectious disease specialists, radiologists and intensivists with the goal of defining recommendations for the optimal management of peritonitis.

CONCLUSION

This document is an updated presentation of management of peritonitis and represents the summary of the final recommendations approved by a panel of experts.

The impact of interleukin serum levels on the prognosis of patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Extracorporeal life support is increasingly used in the treatment of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock or in need of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Identifying therapeutic targets and factors associated with the prognosis are highly desirable. The present study analyzed the impact of interleukin 6 and 8 on the outcome of patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO). Interleukin 6 and 8 serum levels of 329 patients were analyzed prior to, on days 1 and 5 of VA ECMO therapy. Interleukin 6 and 8 serum levels of surviving and nonsurviving patients were compared. At time points with significant differences, receiver operating characteristics and cutoff levels were analyzed to determine the prognostic value of interleukin serum levels. Survival analysis was performed to compare patients above and below cutoff levels. Interleukin 6 serum levels were significantly elevated in nonsurviving patients prior to VA ECMO initiation. Interleukin 6 and 8 serum levels in nonsurviving patients were significantly elevated on day 1 of VA ECMO. Receiver operating characteristics analysis revealed significant prognostic impact of interleukin 6 and 8 on day 1 of VA ECMO (AUC 0.70 and 0.72). Survival analysis comparing patients above and below the cutoff showed a 1-year survival of 32.6% for IL6 and 20.8% for IL8 above, as well as 66.9% for IL6 and 61.9% for IL8 below the cutoff (P < .05). Interleukin 6 and 8 serum levels demonstrated prognostic value early in VA ECMO therapy. The technical applicability of interleukin reduction raises interest in interleukins 6 and 8 as therapeutic targets.

Immediate Closure of Abdominal Cavity with Biologic Mesh versus Temporary Abdominal Closure of Open Abdomen in Non-Trauma Emergency Patients (CLOSE-UP Study)

Background: In more than 10% of emergency laparotomies in non-trauma patients, primary fascial closure is not achievable because of excessive visceral edema, which leaves the patient with an open abdomen (OA). An OA harbors an inherent high risk of serious complications, and temporary closure devices are used to achieve delayed fascial closure. A potential new strategy in preventing OA is immediate closure during the emergency procedure with a non-crosslinked biologic mesh. Methods: This is a prospective comparative cohort feasibility study in 13 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Non-trauma patients who underwent emergency laparotomy in which regular sutured primary fascial closure was not achievable because of excessive intra-abdominal edema were eligible. In one cohort, Biomesh (n = 20), the abdominal cavity was immediately closed at the emergency laparotomy with a non-crosslinked biologic mesh. In a parallel cohort, Control (n = 20), the resulting OA was managed by temporary abdominal closure (TAC; inlay polyglactin [Vicryl™] mesh [n = 7]) or commercial (ABThera^TM) abdominal negative pressure therapy device (n = 13)). The primary end point was the proportion of closed abdominal cavities at 90 days. Results: At 90 days, 65% (13/20) of the abdominal cavities were closed in the Biomesh cohort versus 45% (9/20) in Controls (p = 0.204). In the Biomesh cohort, seven of 20 (35%) patients had at least one major complication versus 15 of 20 (75%) patients in the Control cohort (p = 0.011). Both the median number of intensive care unit (ICU) and mechanical ventilation days were significantly lower in the Biomesh cohort; one versus 10 (p = 0.002) and 0 versus four (p = 0.003) days, respectively. The number of abdominal reoperations was significantly lower in the Biomesh cohort (median 0 vs. two, p < 0.001; total number five vs. 44). Conclusions: If primary fascial closure cannot be achieved at the emergency laparotomy in non-trauma patients, immediate abdominal closure by use of a non-crosslinked biologic mesh prevents OA management. This results in a non-significant higher proportion of closed abdominal cavities at 90 days compared with OA management with TAC techniques, and in a significant reduction of major complications and reoperations, and a shorter ICU stay.

Underlying disease determines the risk of an open abdomen treatment, final closure, however, is determined by the surgical abdominal history

INTRODUCTION

Temporary abdominal closure is frequently used in several situations such as abbreviated surgery in damage control situations or when closing is impossible due to organ distention or increased abdominal pressure. The ultimate goal is to eventually close the fascia; however, little is known about factors predicting abdominal closure. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics associated with the need for open abdomen as well as indicating the possibility of delayed fascial closure after a period of open abdominal treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients that underwent midline laparotomy between January 2008 and December 2012 was performed. Both factors predicting open abdominal treatment and possibility to close the fascia afterwards were identified and analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

775 laparotomies in 525 patients (60% male) were included. 109 patients (21%) had an open abdomen with a mortality rate of 27%. Male gender and acidosis were associated with open abdominal treatment. In 54%, the open abdomen could be closed by delayed fascial closure. The number of laparotomies both before and during temporary abdominal treatment was associated with failure of closure.

CONCLUSION

In this study, male sex and physiological derangement, reflected by acidosis, were independent predictors of open abdominal treatment. Furthermore, the success of delayed fascial closure depends on number of abdominal surgical procedures. Moreover, based on our experiences, we suggest to change modalities early on, to prevent multiple fruitless attempts to close the abdomen.

Emergency repair of complicated abdominal wall hernias: WSES guidelines

PURPOSE

In July 2013, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held the first Consensus Conference on emergency repair of abdominal wall hernias in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines to assist surgeons in the management of complicated abdominal wall hernias. Guidelines were updated in 2017 in keeping with varying clinical practice: benefits resulting from the increased use of biological prosthesis in the emergency setting were highlighted, as previously published in the World Journal of Emergency Surgery. This executive summary is intended to consolidate knowledge on the emergency management of complicated hernias by providing the broad readership with a practical and concise version of the original guidelines.

METHODS

This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines reporting on the emergency management of complicated abdominal wall hernias; statements are highlighted focusing the readers' attention on the main concepts presented in the original guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency repair of complicated abdominal hernias remains one of the most common and challenging surgical emergencies worldwide. WSES aims to provide an essential version of the evidence-based guidelines focusing on the timing of intervention, laparoscopic approach, surgical repair following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wound classification, antimicrobial prophylaxis and anesthesia in the emergency setting.

Ethical considerations in conducting surgical research in severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis

Background

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has high mortality, thought due in part to progressive bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. Treatment includes early antibiotics and operative source control. At surgery, open abdomen management with negative-peritoneal-pressure therapy (NPPT) has been hypothesized to mitigate MOF and death, although clinical equipoise for this operative approach exists. The Closed or Open after Laparotomy (COOL) study (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095) will prospectively randomize eligible patients intra-operatively to formal abdominal closure or OA with NPTT. We review the ethical basis for conducting research in SCIAS.

Main body

Research in critically ill incapacitated patients is important to advance care. Conducting research among SCIAS is complicated due to the severity of illness including delirium, need for emergent interventions, diagnostic criteria confirmed only at laparotomy, and obtundation from anaesthesia. In other circumstances involving critically ill patients, clinical experts have worked closely with ethicists to apply principles that balance the rights of patients whilst simultaneously permitting inclusion in research. In Canada, the Tri-Council Policy Statement-2 (TCPS-2) describes six criteria that permit study enrollment and randomization in such situations: (a) serious threat to the prospective participant requires immediate intervention; (b) either no standard efficacious care exists or the research offers realistic possibility of direct benefit; (c) risks are not greater than that involved in standard care or are clearly justified by prospect for direct benefits; (d) prospective participant is unconscious or lacks capacity to understand the complexities of the research; (e) third-party authorization cannot be secured in sufficient time; and (f) no relevant prior directives are known to exist that preclude participation. TCPS-2 criteria are in principle not dissimilar to other (inter)national criteria. The COOL study will use waiver of consent to initiate enrollment and randomization, followed by surrogate or proxy consent, and finally delayed informed consent in subjects that survive and regain capacity.

Conclusions

A delayed consent mechanism is a practical and ethical solution to challenges in research in SCIAS. The ultimate goal of consent is to balance respect for patient participants and to permit participation in new trials with a reasonable opportunity for improved outcome and minimal risk of harm.

2019 WSES guidelines for the management of severe acute pancreatitis

Although most patients with acute pancreatitis have the mild form of the disease, about 20-30% develops a severe form, often associated with single or multiple organ dysfunction requiring intensive care. Identifying the severe form early is one of the major challenges in managing severe acute pancreatitis. Infection of the pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis occurs in about 20-40% of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and is associated with worsening organ dysfunctions. While most patients with sterile necrosis can be managed nonoperatively, patients with infected necrosis usually require an intervention that can be percutaneous, endoscopic, or open surgical. These guidelines present evidence-based international consensus statements on the management of severe acute pancreatitis from collaboration of a panel of experts meeting during the World Congress of Emergency Surgery in June 27-30, 2018 in Bertinoro, Italy. The main topics of these guidelines fall under the following topics: Diagnosis, Antibiotic treatment, Management in the Intensive Care Unit, Surgical and operative management, and Open abdomen.

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.

Risk factors for mortality and cost implications of complicated intra-abdominal infections in critically ill patients

PURPOSE

To assess risk factors for 28-day mortality and cost implications in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs).

METHODS

Single-center retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data analysing ICU patients with a microbiologically confirmed complicated intra-abdominal infections.

RESULTS

137 complicated intra-abdominal infections were included and stratified according to the adequacy of antimicrobial therapy (initial inadequate antimicrobial therapy [IIAT], n = 44; initial adequate antimicrobial therapy [IAAT], n = 93). The empirical use of enterococci/methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus active agents and of carbapenems was associated with a higher rate of therapeutic adequacy (p = 0.016 and p = 0.01, respectively) while empirical double gram-negative and antifungal therapy did not. IAAT showed significantly lower mortality at 28 and 90 days and increased clinical cure and microbiological eradication (p < 0.01). In the logistic and Cox-regression models, IIAT and inadequate source control were the unique predictors of 28-day mortality. No costs differences were related to the adequacy of empirical therapy and source control. The empirical double gram-negative and antifungal therapy (p = 0.03, p = 0.04) as well as the isolation of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria and the microbiological failure after targeted therapy were drivers of increased costs (p = 0.004, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

IIAT and inadequate source control are confirmed predictors of mortality in ICU patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Empirical antimicrobial strategies and MDR may drive hospital costs.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy with Instillation in the Septic Open Abdomen Utilizing a Modified Negative Pressure Therapy System

BACKGROUND

Various treatment modalities are utilized to treat the open abdomen. The use of negative pressure wound therapy(NPWT)has been a great advancement and has become the preferred modality for temporary abdominal closure technique (TAC). Programmed instillation of the abdominal cavity with saline solution in conjunction with a commercial negative pressure system showed positive results in the management of severe abdominal sepsis in patients that were treated with an open abdomen. Severe abdominal sepsis continues to be an oftendifficult clinical problem for the general surgeon. The use of an open abdomen technique in this setting and the ideal TAC method continue to be debated. The failure to understand the biomechanical features/limitations of negative pressure devices are often contributing factors associated with therapeutic failures reported in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the underlying principles behind negative pressure wound therapy with instillation in the context of abdominal sepsis, as well as its optimal usage in these conditions.

METHODS

A systematic review and two retrospective cohort studies, both published and unpublished performed by some of the authors were included to provide a basis form comparison between NPWT and NPWT-I outcomes in managing abdominal sepsis.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that this technique appears to reduce morbidity, mortality, and hospital and critical care length of stay. This communication is intended to help inform general surgeons that manage complex abdominal infections on how to optimally apply this technique.

Closed Or Open after Source Control Laparotomy for Severe Complicated Intra-Abdominal Sepsis (the COOL trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. Principles of treatment include early antibiotic administration and operative source control. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with active negative peritoneal pressure therapy (ANPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and ameliorate the systemic damage from SCIAS. Although there is now a biologic rationale for such an intervention as well as non-standardized and erratic clinical utilization, this remains a novel therapy with potential side effects and clinical equipoise.

Methods

The Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL) study will constitute a prospective randomized controlled trial that will randomly allocate eligible surgical patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or use of the OA with application of an ANPTT dressing. Patients will be eligible if they have free uncontained intra-peritoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR a Predisposition-Infection-Response-Organ Dysfunction Score ≥ 3 or a World-Society-of-Emergency-Surgery-Sepsis-Severity-Score ≥ 8. The primary outcome will be 90-day survival. Secondary outcomes will be logistical, physiologic, safety, bio-mediators, microbiological, quality of life, and health-care costs. Secondary outcomes will include days free of ICU, ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and hospital at 30 days from the index laparotomy. Physiologic secondary outcomes will include changes in intensive care unit illness severity scores after laparotomy. Bio-mediator outcomes for participating centers will involve measurement of interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-10, procalcitonin, activated protein C (APC), high-mobility group box protein-1, complement factors, and mitochondrial DNA. Economic outcomes will comprise standard costing for utilization of health-care resources.

Discussion

Although facial closure after SCIAS is considered the current standard of care, many reports are suggesting that OA management may improve outcomes in these patients. This trial will be powered to demonstrate a mortality difference in this highly lethal and morbid condition to ensure critically ill patients are receiving the best care possible and not being harmed by inappropriate therapies based on opinion only.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03163095.

Abdominal compartment syndrome and the open abdomen: any unresolved issues?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the key principles of abdominal compartment syndrome and the open abdomen, exploring some of the unresolved issues. It reviews new concepts in care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent use of peritoneal resuscitation, and benefits of mesh-mediated traction are discussed. Abdominal compartment syndrome remains a result of complex interaction between general haemorrhage, sepsis and fluid resuscitation. Improved resuscitation and sepsis control has decreased but not abolished the need for the open abdomen and progression for abdominal compartment syndrome. Fourth-generation abdominal wall dressings need to be combined with a dynamic closure system; currently, negative pressure wound therapy at the index open abdomen coupled with mesh-mediated tractions offers the best outcome.

SUMMARY

The key to optimizing outcome is early abdominal closure within 7 days because failure to do so will increase morbidity, mortality and fistulae formation. Novel techniques complementing existing de-resuscitation techniques are discussed.

Negative pressure therapy for the treatment of complex wounds

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of negative pressure therapy (NPT) in the treatment of complex wounds, with emphasis on its mechanisms of action and main therapeutic indications. We searched the Pubmed / Medline database for articles published from 1997 to 2016, and selected the most relevant ones. The mechanisms of action of NPT involveboth physical effects, such as increased perfusion, control of edema and exudate, reduction of wound dimensions and bacterial clearance, and biological ones, such as the stimulation of granulation tissue formation, microdeformations and reduction of Inflammatory response. The main indications of NPT are complex wounds, such as pressure ulcers, traumatic wounds, operative wound dehiscences, burns, necrotizing wounds, venous ulcers, diabetic wounds, skin grafts, open abdomen, prevention of complications in closed incisions and in the association with instillation of solutions in infected wounds.

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.

Open Abdomen Therapy with Vacuum and Mesh Mediated Fascial Traction After Aortic Repair: an International Multicentre Study

OBJECTIVES

Open abdomen therapy may be necessary to prevent or treat abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). The aim of the study was to analyse the primary delayed fascial closure (PDFC) rate and complications after open abdomen therapy with vacuum and mesh mediated fascial traction (VACM) after aortic repair and to compare outcomes between those treated with open abdomen after primary versus secondary operation.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort, multicentre study in Sweden, Finland, and Norway, including consecutive patients treated with open abdomen and VACM after aortic repair at six vascular centres in 2006-2015. The primary endpoint was PDFC rate.

RESULTS

Among 191 patients, 155 were men. The median age was 71 years (IQR 66-76). Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) occurred in 69.1%. Endovascular/hybrid and open repairs were performed in 49 and 142 patients, respectively. The indications for open abdomen were inability to close the abdomen (62%) at primary operation and ACS (80%) at secondary operation. Duration of open abdomen was 11 days (IQR 7-16) in 157 patients alive at open abdomen termination. The PDFC rate was 91.8%. Open abdomen initiated at primary (N=103), compared with secondary operation (N=88), was associated with less severe initial open abdomen status (p=.006), less intestinal ischaemia (p=.002), shorter duration of open abdomen (p=.007), and less renal replacement therapy (RRT, p<.001). In hospital mortality was 39.3%, and after entero-atmospheric fistula (N=9) was 88.9%. Seven developed graft infection within 6 months, 1 year mortality was 28.6%. Intestinal ischaemia (OR 3.71, 95% CI 1.55-8.91), RRT (OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.72-7.65), and age (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06-1.12), were independent factors associated with in hospital mortality, but not open abdomen initiated at primary versus secondary operation.

CONCLUSIONS

VACM was associated with a high PDFC rate after prolonged open abdomen therapy following aortic repair. Patient outcomes seemed better when open abdomen was initiated at primary, compared with secondary operation but a selection effect is possible.

Characterization of hypoalbuminemia following temporary abdominal closure

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to characterize associations among serum proteins, negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) fluid loss, and primary fascial closure (PFC) following emergent laparotomy and temporary abdominal closure (TAC). We hypothesized that high levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and NPWT output would be associated with hypoalbuminemia and failure to achieve PFC.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 233 patients managed with NPWT TAC. Serum proteins and resuscitation indices were assessed on admission, initial laparotomy, and then at 48 hours, 96 hours, 7 days, and discharge. Correlations were assessed by Pearson coefficient. Multivariable regression was performed to identify predictors of PFC with cutoff values for continuous variables determined by Youden index.

RESULTS

Patients who failed to achieve PFC (n = 55) had significantly higher CRP at admission (249 vs. 148 mg/L, p = 0.003), initial laparotomy (237 vs. 154, p = 0.002), and discharge (124 vs. 72, p = 0.003), as well as significantly lower serum albumin at 7 days (2.3 vs. 2.5 g/dL, p = 0.028) and discharge (2.5 vs. 2.8, p = 0.004). Prealbumin (in milligrams per deciliter) was similar between groups at each time point. There was an inverse correlation between nadir serum albumin and total milliliters of NPWT output (r = -0.33, p < 0.001). Exogenous albumin administration (in grams per day) correlated with higher serum albumin levels at each time point: 48 hours: r = 0.26 (p = 0.002), 96 hours: r = 0.29 (p = 0.002), 7 days: r = 0.40 (p < 0.001). Albumin of less than 2.6 g/dL was an independent predictor of failure to achieve PFC (odds ratio, 2.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-6.61) in a multivariate model including abdominal sepsis, body mass index of greater than 40 kg/m, and CRP of greater than 250 mg/L.

CONCLUSIONS

Early and persistent systemic inflammation and high NPWT output were associated with hypoalbuminemia, which was an independent predictor of failure to achieve PFC. The utility of exogenous albumin following TAC requires further study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic study, level III; Therapeutic study, level IV.

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.

Negative pressure therapy versus passive open abdominal drainage for the treatment of septic peritonitis in dogs: A randomized, prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To compare passive open abdominal drainage (POAD) and negative-pressure abdominal drainage (NPAD) using the ABThera™ system in the treatment of septic peritonitis.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized prospective clinical trial.

ANIMALS

Dogs (n = 16) with septic peritonitis.

METHODS

Dogs with septic peritonitis were randomly assigned to one of two treatment protocols: NPAD versus POAD. Anesthesia time, operating time, duration of drainage, costs, survival, and complications were compared between techniques. Hematological and biochemical parameters in blood and abdominal fluid, and histopathological findings of omentum and abdominal wall tissue samples were compared between NPAD and POAD at time of initial surgery and at time of closure.

RESULTS

Overall survival was 81%. Treatment costs, anesthesia and operating time, drainage time, survival, and postoperative complications were similar between techniques. Loss of total plasma protein and decreased inflammation-related factors in abdominal fluid at time of closure were noted in all patients. Neutrophilic inflammation was greater in abdominal wall samples after NPAD. POAD patients showed discomfort during bandage changes and had frequent leakage of abdominal fluid outside of the bandage.

CONCLUSION

NPAD is an effective alternative to POAD for treatment of septic peritonitis, based on costs and survival. NPAD resulted in less abdominal fluid leakage, and evidence of superior healing on histological evaluation of abdominal tissues.

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.

2017 update of the WSES guidelines for emergency repair of complicated abdominal wall hernias

Emergency repair of complicated abdominal wall hernias may be associated with worsen outcome and a significant rate of postoperative complications. There is no consensus on management of complicated abdominal hernias. The main matter of debate is about the use of mesh in case of intestinal resection and the type of mesh to be used. Wound infection is the most common complication encountered and represents an immense burden especially in the presence of a mesh. The recurrence rate is an important topic that influences the final outcome. A World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) Consensus Conference was held in Bergamo in July 2013 with the aim to define recommendations for emergency repair of abdominal wall hernias in adults. This document represents the executive summary of the consensus conference approved by a WSES expert panel. In 2016, the guidelines have been revised and updated according to the most recent available literature.