The open abdomen: temporary closure with a modified negative pressure therapy technique

Primary anastomosis and suturing combined with vacuum-assisted abdominal closure in patients with secondary peritonitis due to perforation of the small intestine: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Intestinal resection and a proximal stoma is the preferred surgical approach in patients with severe secondary peritonitis due to perforation of the small intestine. However, proximal stomas may result in significant nutritional problems and long-term parenteral nutrition. This study aimed to assess whether primary anastomosis or suturing of small intestine perforation is feasible and safe using the open abdomen principle with vacuum-assisted abdominal closure (VAC).

METHODS

Between January 2005 and June 2018, we performed a retrospective chart review of 20 patients (> 18 years) with diffuse faecal peritonitis caused by small intestinal perforation and treated with primary anastomosis/suturing and subsequent open abdomen with VAC.

RESULTS

The median age was 65 years (range: 23-90 years). Twelve patients were female (60%). Simple suturing of the small intestinal perforation was performed in three cases and intestinal resection with primary anastomosis in 17 cases. Four patients (20%) died within 90-days postoperatively. Leakage occurred in five cases (25%), and three patients developed an enteroatmospheric fistula (15%). Thirteen of 16 patients (83%) who survived were discharged without a stoma. The rest had a permanent stoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary suturing or resection with anastomosis and open abdomen with VAC in small intestinal perforation with severe faecal peritonitis is associated with a high rate of leakage and enteroatmospheric fistula formation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was approved by the Danish Patient Safety Authority (case number 3-3013-1555/1) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (file number 18/28,404). No funding was received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Open Abdomen Negative Pressure Device Applied for Two-stage Closure of Enterocutaneous Fistula

Enterocutaneous fistula (ECF), which is an abnormal connection between the gastrointestinal tract and skin, is a serious complication of abdominal surgery, and a multidisciplinary approach is required for its treatment. Here, we report the case of a 46-year-old woman who had a large ECF measuring 6 × 12 cm that was successfully treated with a 2-stage surgery. After the first surgery of intestinal wall reconstruction, an abdominal negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) device was administered to facilitate the reexploration of the abdominal cavity. On postoperative day 5, intestinal perforation and abdominal cavity infection were found during dressing change and were immediately repaired. Subsequently, after 10 days of abdominal NPWT, the second surgery comprising abdominal wall reconstruction was performed using a pedicled anterolateral thigh flap (8 × 19 cm) combined with the fascia lata (12 × 20 cm). The defective rectus sheath and skin were uneventfully closed with the fascia lata and flap skin paddle, respectively. In the follow-up after 7 months, ECF had not recurred. The abdominal NPWT device enabled easy reentry of the abdominal cavity and reduced the size of the flap needed to cover the defect. Moreover, open abdominal management can be performed consistently, independent of the surgeon’s expertise. Therefore, this report suggests that 2-stage surgery with abdominal NPWT management is a useful strategy for ECF treatment.

New non-invasive device to promote primary closure of the fascia and prevent loss of domain in the open abdomen: a pilot study

Background

Primary closure of the fascia at the conclusion of a stage laparotomy can be a challenging task. Current techniques to medialize the fascial edges in open abdomens entail several trips to the operating room and could result in fascial damage. We conducted a pilot study to investigate a novel non-invasive device for gradual reapproximation of the abdominal wall fascia in the open abdomen.

Methods

Mechanically ventilated patients ≥16 years of age with the abdominal fascia deliberately left open after a midline laparotomy for trauma and acute care surgery were randomized into two groups. Control group patients underwent standard care with negative pressure therapy only. Device group patients were treated with negative pressure therapy in conjunction with the new device for fascial reapproximation. Exclusion criteria: pregnancy, traumatic hernias, pre-existing ventral hernias, burns, and body mass index ≥40 kg/m². The primary outcome was successful fascial closure by direct suture of the fascia without mesh or component separation. Secondary outcomes were abdominal wall complications.

Results

Thirty-eight patients were investigated, 20 in the device group and 18 in the control group. Primary closure of the fascia by direct suture without mesh or component separation was achieved in 17 patients (85%) in the device group and only 10 patients (55.6%) in the control group (p=0.0457). Device group patients were 53% more likely to experience primary fascial closure by direct suture than control group patients. Device group showed gradual reduction (p<0.005) in the size of the fascial defects; not seen in control group. There were no complications related to the device.

Conclusions

The new device applied externally on the abdominal wall promoted reapproximation of the fascia in the midline, preserved the integrity of the fascia, and improved primary fascial closure rate compared with negative pressure therapy system only.

Level of evidence

I, randomized controlled trial.

EWMA Document: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy

1. Introduction Since its introduction in clinical practice in the early 1990's negative pressure wounds therapy (NPWT) has become widely used in the management of complex wounds in both inpatient and outpatient care.¹ NPWT has been described as a effective treatment for wounds of many different aetiologies^2,3 and suggested as a gold standard for treatment of wounds such as open abdominal wounds,^4-6 dehisced sternal wounds following cardiac surgery^7,8 and as a valuable agent in complex non-healing wounds.^9,10 Increasingly, NPWT is being applied in the primary and home-care setting, where it is described as having the potential to improve the efficacy of wound management and help reduce the reliance on hospital-based care.¹¹ While the potential of NPWT is promising and the clinical use of the treatment is widespread, highlevel evidence of its effectiveness and economic benefits remain sparse.^12-14 The ongoing controversy regarding high-level evidence in wound care in general is well known. There is a consensus that clinical practice should be evidence-based, which can be difficult to achieve due to confusion about the value of the various approaches to wound management; however, we have to rely on the best available evidence. The need to review wound strategies and treatments in order to reduce the burden of care in an efficient way is urgent. If patients at risk of delayed wound healing are identified earlier and aggressive interventions are taken before the wound deteriorates and complications occur, both patient morbidity and health-care costs can be significantly reduced. There is further a fundamental confusion over the best way to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in this complex patient population. This is illustrated by reviews of the value of various treatment strategies for non-healing wounds, which have highlighted methodological inconsistencies in primary research. This situation is confounded by differences in the advice given by regulatory and reimbursement bodies in various countries regarding both study design and the ways in which results are interpreted. In response to this confusion, the European Wound Management Association (EWMA) has been publishing a number of interdisciplinary documents^15-19 with the intention of highlighting: The nature and extent of the problem for wound management: from the clinical perspective as well as that of care givers and the patients Evidence-based practice as an integration of clinical expertise with the best available clinical evidence from systematic research The nature and extent of the problem for wound management: from the policy maker and healthcare system perspectives The controversy regarding the value of various approaches to wound management and care is illustrated by the case of NPWT, synonymous with topical negative pressure or vacuum therapy and cited as branded VAC (vacuum-assisted closure) therapy. This is a mode of therapy used to encourage wound healing. It is used as a primary treatment of chronic wounds, in complex acute wounds and as an adjunct for temporary closure and wound bed preparation preceding surgical procedures such as skin grafts and flap surgery. Aim An increasing number of papers on the effect of NPWT are being published. However, due to the low evidence level the treatment remains controversial from the policy maker and health-care system's points of view-particularly with regard to evidence-based medicine. In response EWMA has established an interdisciplinary working group to describe the present knowledge with regard to NPWT and provide overview of its implications for organisation of care, documentation, communication, patient safety, and health economic aspects. These goals will be achieved by the following: Present the rational and scientific support for each delivered statement Uncover controversies and issues related to the use of NPWT in wound management Implications of implementing NPWT as a treatment strategy in the health-care system Provide information and offer perspectives of NPWT from the viewpoints of health-care staff, policy makers, politicians, industry, patients and hospital administrators who are indirectly or directly involved in wound management.

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 Treated with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: Indications, Management and Survival

BACKGROUND

Open abdomen treatment (OAT) is a significant burden for patients and is associated with considerable mortality. The primary aim of this study was to report survival and cause of mortality after OAT. Secondary aims were to evaluate length of stay (LOS) in intensive care unit (ICU) and in hospital, time to abdominal closure and major complications.

METHODS

Retrospective review of prospectively registered patients undergoing OAT between October 2006 and June 2014 at Trondheim University Hospital, Norway.

RESULTS

The 118 patients with OAT had a median age of 63 (20-88) years. OAT indications were abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) (n = 53), prophylactic (n = 29), abdominal contamination/second look laparotomy (n = 22), necrotizing fasciitis (n = 7), hemorrhage packing (n = 4) and full-thickness wound dehiscence (n = 3). Eight percent were trauma patients. Vacuum-assisted wound closure (VAWC) with mesh-mediated traction (VAWCM) was used in 92 (78 %) patients, the remaining 26 (22 %) had VAWC only. Per-protocol primary fascial closure rate was 84 %. Median time to abdominal closure was 12 days (1-143). LOS in the ICU was 15 (1-89), and in hospital 29 (1-246) days. Eighty-one (68 %) patients survived the hospital stay. Renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) (OR 3.9, 95 % CI 1.37-11.11), ACS (OR 3.1, 95 % CI 1.19-8.29) and advanced age (OR 1.045, 95 % CI 1.004-1.088) were independent predictors of mortality in multivariate analysis. The nine patients with an entero-atmospheric fistula (EAF) survived.

CONCLUSION

Two-thirds of the patients treated with OAT survived. Renal failure with RRT, ACS and advanced age were predictors of mortality, whereas EAF was not associated with increased mortality.

Vacuum-Assisted Abdominal Closure Is Safe and Effective: A Cohort Study in 74 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) has, in many instances, become the treatment of choice in patients with abdominal catastrophes. This study describes the use and outcome of ABThera KCI® VAC in the Region Southern Denmark covering a population of approximately 1.202 mill inhabitants.

METHOD

A prospective multicenter study including all patients treated with VAC during an eleven-month period.

RESULTS

A total of 74 consecutive patients were included. Median age was 64.4 (9-89) years, 64% were men, and median body mass index was 25 (17-42). Duration of VAC treatment was median 4.5 (0-39) days with median 1 (0-16) dressing changes. Seventy per cent of the patients attended the intensive care unit. The 90-day mortality was 15%. A secondary closure of the fascia was obtained in 84% of the surviving patients. Only one patient developed an enteroatmospheric fistula. Patients with secondary closure were less likely to develop large hernias and had better self-evaluated physical health score (p < 0,05). No difference in mental health was found.

CONCLUSION

The abdominal VAC treatment in patients with abdominal catastrophes is safe and with a relative low complication rate. Whether it might be superior to conventional treatment with primary closure when possible has yet to be proven in a randomized study.

Open abdomen with vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction in patients with complicated diffuse secondary peritonitis: A single-center 8-year experience

BACKGROUND

Open abdomen (OA) treatment in patients with peritonitis is increasing worldwide. Various temporary abdominal closure devices are being used. This study included patients with complicated diffuse secondary peritonitis, OA, and vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM). The aim of this study was to describe mortality and major morbidity in terms of delayed primary fascial closure and enteroatmospheric fistula rates.

METHODS

This was a single-academic-center retrospective study of consecutive patients with diffuse peritonitis, OA, and VAWCM between years 2008 and 2016. Descriptive and univariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were identified and analyzed. Median age was 59 years, preoperative septic shock was diagnosed in 54% (n = 22), and 59% (n = 24) had a postoperative peritonitis. Mortality was 29% (n = 12), and 76% (n = 31) of patients were admitted in the intensive care unit. The median duration of OA was 7 days with a median of two dressing changes. Delayed primary fascial closure rate among survivors was 92% (n = 33), and enteroatmospheric fistulas developed in 7% (n = 3). In a subgroup analysis, patients with OA in the primary laparotomy for peritonitis (n = 27) were compared with patients with OA in the subsequent laparotomies (n = 14). There were no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The VAWCM technique in patients with complicated secondary diffuse peritonitis and OA yields excellent results in terms of delayed primary fascial closure rate and a low number of enteroatmospheric fistulas. It seems to be safe to close the abdomen at the index laparotomy, if possible, even if there is a risk of a need of OA later.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

What is the effectiveness of the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in patients treated with open abdomen technique? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The open abdomen technique may be used in critically ill patients to manage abdominal injury, reduce the septic complications, and prevent the abdominal compartment syndrome. Many different techniques have been proposed and multiple studies have been conducted, but the best method of temporary abdominal closure has not been determined yet. Recently, new randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials have been published on this topic. We aimed to perform an up-to-date systematic review on the management of open abdomen, including the most recent published randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, to compare negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with no NPWT and define if one technique has better outcomes than the other with regard to primary fascial closure, postoperative 30-day mortality and morbidity, enteroatmospheric fistulae, abdominal abscess, bleeding, and length of stay.

METHODS

According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, an online literature research (until July 1, 2015) was performed on MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Library databases. The MeSH terms and free words used "vacuum assisted closure" "vac;", "open abdomen", "damage control surgery", and "temporary abdominal closure". No language restriction was made.

RESULTS

The initial systematic literature search yielded 452 studies. After a careful assessment of the titles and of the full text was obtained, eight articles fulfilled inclusion criteria. We analyzed 1,225 patients, of whom 723 (59%) underwent NPWT and 502 (41%) did not undergo NPWT, and performed four subgroups: VAC versus Bogota bag technique (two studies, 106 participants), VAC versus mesh-foil laparostomy (two studies, 159 participants), VAC versus laparostomy (adhesive impermeable with midline zip) (one study, 106 participants), and NPWT versus no NPWT techniques (three studies, 854 participants) in which it is not possible to perform an analysis of the different types of treatment. Comparing the NPWT group and the group without NPWT, there was no statistically significant difference in fascial closure (63.5% vs 69.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-2.06; p = 0.57), postoperative 30-day overall morbidity (p = 0.19), postoperative enteroatmospheric fistulae rate (2.1% vs 5.8%; OR, 0.63; 95% CIs, 0.12-3.15; p = 0.57), in the postoperative bleeding rate (5.7% vs 14.9%; OR, 0.58; 95% CIs, 0.05-6.84; p = 0.87), and postoperative abdominal abscess rate (2.4% vs 5.6%; OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.13-1.34; p = 0.14). On the other hand, statistical significance was found between the NPWT group and the group without NPWT in the postoperative mortality rate (28.5% vs 41.4%; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23-0.91; p = 0.03) and in the length of stay in the intensive care unit (mean difference, -4.53; 95% CI, -5.46 to 3.60; p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

The limitations of the present analysis might be related to the lack of randomized controlled trials, so there is a risk of selection bias favoring NPWT. For several outcomes, there were few studies, confidence intervals were wide, and inconsistency was high, suggesting that although there were no statistically significant differences between the groups, there was insufficient evidence to show that the outcomes were similar. We can conclude from the current available data that NPWT seems to be associated with a trend toward better outcomes compared to the use of no NPWT. It does reflect the evidence presented in the current systematic review; however, the data should be interpreted with substantial caution given a number of weaknesses (in particular, the lack of statistical significance and heterogeneity between studies, i.e., small sample size of the included studies, high variability between studies). We highlight the need for randomized controlled trials having homogeneous inclusion criteria to assess the use of NPWT for the management of open abdomen.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systemic review/meta-analysis, level III.

Management of the open abdomen: clinical recommendations for the trauma/acute care surgeon and general surgeon

Traditionally, the surgical approach to managing abdominal injuries was to assess the extent of trauma, repair any damage and close the abdomen in one definitive procedure rather than leave the abdomen open. With advances in medicine, damage control surgery using temporary abdominal closure methods is being used to manage the open abdomen (OA) when closure is not possible. Although OA management is often observed in traumatic injuries, the extension of damage control surgery concepts, in conjunction with OA, for the management of the septic patient requires that the general surgeon who is faced with these challenges has a comprehensive knowledge of this complex subject. The purpose of this article is to provide guidance to the acute care and general surgeon on the use of OA negative pressure therapy (OA-NPT; ABTHERA™ Open Abdomen Negative Pressure Therapy System, KCI, an ACELITY Company, San Antonio, TX) for OA management. A literature review of published evidence, clinical recommendations on managing the OA and a case study demonstrating OA management using OA-NPT have been included.

Surgical Site Infection Rate Drops to 0% Using a Vacuum-Assisted Closure in Contaminated/ Dirty Infected Laparotomy Wounds

Wound site infections increase costs, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. Techniques used for wounds management after laparotomy are primary, delayed primary, and vacuum-assisted closures. The objective of this study is to compare infection rates between those techniques in contaminated and dirty/ infected wounds. Eighty-one laparotomized patients with Class III or IV surgical wounds were enrolled in a three-arm randomized prospective study. Patients were allocated to each group with the software Research Randomizer® (Urbaniak, G. C, & Plous, S., Version 4.0). Presence of infection was determined by a certified board physician according to Centers for Disease Control's Criteria for Defining a Surgical Site Infection. Twenty-seven patients received primary closure, 29 delayed primary closure, and 25 vacuum-assisted closure, with no exclusions for analysis. Surgical site infection was present in 10 (37%) patients treated with primary closure, 5 (17%) with primary delayed closure, and 0 (0%) patients receiving vacuum-assisted closure. Statistical significance was found between infection rates of the vacuum-assisted group and the other two groups. No significant difference was found between the primary and primary delayed closure groups. The infection rate in contaminated/dirty-infected laparotomy wounds decreases from 37 and 17 per cent with a primary and delayed primary closures, respectively, to 0 per cent with vacuum-assisted systems.

Complications and Mortality Associated with Temporary Abdominal Closure Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques are routinely used in the open abdomen. Ideally, they should prevent evisceration, aid in removal of unwanted fluid from the peritoneal cavity, facilitate in achieving safe definitive fascial closure, as well as prevent the development of intra-abdominal complications. TAC techniques used in the open abdomen were compared with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) to identify which was superior. A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines involving Medline, Excerpta Medica, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Clinicaltrials.gov. All studies describing TAC technique use in the open abdomen were eligible for inclusion. Data were analyzed per TAC technique in the form of a meta-analysis. A total of 225 articles were included in the final analysis. A meta-analysis involving only randomized controlled trials showed that NPWT with continuous fascial closure was superior to NPWT alone for definitive fascial closure [mean difference (MD): 35% ± 23%; P = 0.0044]. A subsequent meta-analysis involving all included studies confirmed its superiority across outcomes for definitive fascial closure (MD: 19% ± 3%; P < 0.0001), perioperative (MD: -4.0% ± 2.4%; P = 0.0013) and in-hospital (MD: -5.0% ± 2.9%; P = 0.0013) mortality, entero-atmospheric fistula (MD: 22.0% ± 1.8%; P = 0.0041), ventral hernia (MD: -4.0% ± 2.4%; P = 0.0010), and intra-abdominal abscess (MD: -3.1% ± 2.1%; P = 0.0044). Therefore, it was concluded that NPWT with continuous fascial traction is superior to NPWT alone.

Treatment Options in Gastrointestinal Cutaneous Fistulas

Enterocutaneous fistulas occur most commonly following surgery. A minority of them is caused by a myriad of other etiologies including infection, malignancy, and radiation. While some fistulas may close spontaneously, most patients will eventually need surgery to resolve this pathology. Successful treatment entails adoption of various methods of treatment aimed at control of sepsis, protection of surrounding skin and soft tissue, control of fistula output, and maintenance of nutrition, with eventual spontaneous or surgical closure of the fistula. The aim of this article is to review the various treatment options in their appropriate context.

In vitro pressure manifolding distribution evaluation of ABThera(™) Active Abdominal Therapy System, V.A.C.(®) Abdominal Dressing System, and Barker's vacuum packing technique conducted under dynamic conditions

OBJECTIVES

Temporary abdominal closure methods allow for management of open abdomens where immediate primary closure is not possible and/or where repeat abdominal entries are necessary. We assessed pressure mapping and fluid extraction efficiency of three open abdomen dressing systems: ABThera(™) Active Abdominal Therapy System, V.A.C.(®) Abdominal Dressing System, and Barker's vacuum packing technique.

METHODS

An in vitro test model was designed to simulate physical conditions present in an open abdomen. The model consisted of a rigid rest platform with elevated central region and a flexible outer layer with centrally located incision. Constant -125 mmHg negative pressure was applied according to the type of system, under simulated dynamic conditions, using albumin-based solution with a viscosity of 14 cP. Data were collected by pressure sensors located circumferentially into three concentric zones: Zone 1 (closest to negative pressure source), Zone 2 (immediately outside of manifolding material edge), and Zone 3 (area most distal from negative pressure source). Each value was the result of approximately 100 pressure readings/zone/experiment with a total of three experiments for each system.

RESULTS

Pressure distribution of ABThera Therapy was significantly (p < 0.05) superior to Barker's vacuum packing technique in all three evaluated zones. Similarly, V.A.C. Abdominal Dressing System pressure distribution was significantly (p < 0.05) improved compared to Barker's vacuum packing technique in all zones. There were no pressure distribution differences in Zone 1 between ABThera Therapy and V.A.C. Abdominal Dressing System; however, in Zones 2 and 3, ABThera Therapy was significantly (p < 0.05) superior to V.A.C. Abdominal Dressing System.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that all approaches to negative pressure therapy for open abdomen treatment are not equal. Additional research should be conducted to elucidate clinical implications of data demonstrated here.