Increasing Use of Prophylactic Open Abdomen Therapy With Vacuum Assisted Wound Closure and Mesh Mediated Fascial Traction After Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

Open abdomen therapy (OAT) is commonly used to prevent or treat abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs). This study aimed to evaluate the incidence, treatment, and outcomes of OAT after rAAA from 2006 to 2021. Investigating data on resuscitation fluid, weight gain, and cumulative fluid balance could provide a more systematic approach to determining the timing of safe abdominal closure.

METHODS

This was a single centre observational cohort study. The study included all patients treated for rAAA followed by OAT from October 2006 to December 2021.

RESULTS

Seventy-two of the 244 patients who underwent surgery for rAAA received OAT. The mean age was 72 ± 7.85 years, and most were male (n = 61, 85%). The most frequent comorbidities were cardiac disease (n = 31, 43%) and hypertension (n = 31, 43%). Fifty-two patients (72%) received prophylactic OAT, and 20 received OAT for ACS (28%). There was a 25% mortality rate in the prophylactic OAT group compared with the 50% mortality in those who received OAT for ACS (p = .042). The 58 (81%) patients who survived until closure had a median of 12 (interquartile range [IQR] 9, 16.5) days of OAT and 5 (IQR 4, 7) dressing changes. There was one case of colocutaneous fistula and two cases of graft infection. All 58 patients underwent successful abdominal closure, with 55 (95%) undergoing delayed primary closure. In hospital survival was 85%. Treatment trends over time showed the increased use of prophylactic OAT (p ≤ .001) and fewer ACS cases (p = .03) assessed by Fisher's exact test. In multivariable regression analysis fluid overload and weight reduction predicted 26% of variability in time to closure.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic OAT after rAAA can be performed safely, with a high rate of delayed primary closure even after long term treatment.

Small bowel anastomosis in peritonitis compared to enterostomy formation: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leakage after small bowel resection in emergency laparotomy is a severe complication. A consensus on the risk factors for anastomotic leakage has not been established, and it is still unclear if peritonitis is a risk factor. This systematic review aimed to evaluate if an entero-entero/entero-colonic anastomosis is safe in patients with peritonitis undergoing abdominal acute care surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature review based on PRISMA guidelines was performed, searching the databases Pubmed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct for studies of anastomosis in peritonitis. Patients with an anastomosis after non-planned small bowel resection (ischemia, perforation, or strangulation), including secondary peritonitis, were included. Elective laparotomies and colo-colonic anastomoses were excluded. Due to the etiology, traumatic perforation, in-vitro, and animal studies were excluded.

RESULTS

This review identified 26 studies of small-bowel anastomosis in peritonitis with a total of 2807 patients. This population included a total of 889 small-bowel/right colonic resections with anastomoses, and 242 enterostomies. All studies, except two, were retrospective reviews or case series. The overall mortality rates were 0-20% and anastomotic leakage rates 0-36%. After performing a risk of bias evaluation there was no basis for conducting a meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was rated as low.

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence to refute performing a primary small-bowel anastomosis in acute laparotomy with peritonitis. There is currently insufficient evidence to label peritonitis as a risk factor for anastomotic leakage in acute care laparotomy with small-bowel resection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review was registered with the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews on 14/07/2020 with the ID: CRD42020168670.

Study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled pilot study on decompressive laparotomy vs. decompressive craniectomy for intractable intracranial pressure after traumatic brain injury: The SCALPEL study

Introduction

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is the ultimate intervention to lower intracranial pressure (ICP) following severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, this intervention is associated with considerable adverse events and a higher proportion of survivors with poor functional outcomes.

Research question

In a multicompartment system ICP is associated with intraabdominal pressure (IAP) due to cerebral venous outflow from the brain. This is the rationale for decompressive laparotomy (DL) to control ICP after TBI as reported by experimental and retrospective clinical data. The safety profile of DL is superior to DC. This study aims to randomly assign patients with intractable high ICP after severe TBI to DL or DC.

Material and methods

Among other inclusion criteria, ICP must be above 20 mmHg (1-12 h) despite sedation and all other measures according to current guidelines. The primary outcome is the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale assessed after twelve months. Further secondary outcome measures are compartmental pressure values, complications, etc. After 20 initial patients, results will be reviewed by the ethics committees and safety monitoring board to decide on the enrolment of 80 additional patients.

Results

The study is designed to provide not only high-quality prospective data for the first time on this treatment approach, its two-stage design (20 + 80 pts) also provides maximum patient safety. This protocol conforms with the SPIRIT 2013 Statement. Ethics approval was granted by our but also 5 other university ethics committees (registration 473/18S).

Conclusion

Registration was performed prior to study initiation in November 2021 (registration number NCT05115929).

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 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.

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. 

[Surgical wound closure in advanced peritonitis]

To date, mortality in widespread peritonitis is still high (15-20%) and increased up to 70-80% in case of septic shock. Surgeons actively discuss wound closure technique in these patients considering intraoperative findings and severity of illness. The authors present scientific data and opinions of national and foreign surgeons regarding the methods of laparotomy closure. There are still no generally accepted criteria for choosing the method of laparotomy closure in secondary widespread peritonitis. Indications and clinical efficacy of each procedure require additional research.

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.

Abdominal Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Devices for Management of the Open Abdomen: A Technologic Analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this technologic analysis was to analyze technologic features of abdominal negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT).

APPROACH

Published literature regarding abdominal negative pressure wound therapy (aNPWT) devices was reviewed. A summary of management approaches for the open abdomen provides a foundation for understanding the benefits of aNPWT. Safety information regarding aNPWT was derived from the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) Database.

CONCLUSIONS

The open abdomen approach with temporary abdominal closure may be employed for patients with a variety of conditions. Specialized abdominal NPWT devices, either singly or in combination with other approaches, may contribute to improved outcomes in this high-risk patient population. Manufacturer recommendations and clinical guidelines should be followed to minimize patient risk.

Development and validation of a multivariable prediction model in open abdomen patients for entero-atmospheric fistula

BACKGROUND

Laparostomy or Open Abdomen (OA) has matured into an effective strategy in the management of abdominal catastrophe. Single prognostic factors have been identified in a previous systematic review regarding entero-atmospheric fistula (EAF). Unfortunately, no prognostic multivariable model for EAF exist. The aim was to develop and validate a multivariable prediction model from a retrospective cohort study involving three hospital's databases.

METHODS

Fifty-seven variables were evaluated to develop a multivariable model. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed for on a developmental data set from two hospitals. Receiver operator characteristics analysis with area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were performed on the developmental data set (internal validation) as well as on an additional validation data set from another hospital (external validation).

RESULTS

Five-hundred and forty-eight patients managed with an OA. Two variables remained in the multivariable prediction model for EAF. The AUC for EAF on internal validation were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.58-0.86) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.67-0.92) on external validation.

CONCLUSIONS

A multivariable prediction model for EAF was externally validated and an easy-to-use probability nomogram was constructed using the two predictor variables.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; prognostic.

Management of the patient with the open abdomen

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was to outline the management of the patient with the open abdomen.

RECENT FINDINGS

An open abdomen approach is used after damage control laparotomy, to decrease risk for postsurgery intra-abdominal hypertension, if reoperation is likely and after primary abdominal decompression.Temporary abdominal wall closure without negative pressure is associated with higher rates of intra-abdominal infection and evisceration. Negative pressure systems improve fascial closure rates but increase fistula formation. Definitive abdominal wall closure should be considered once oedema has subsided and the patient has stabilized. Delayed abdominal closure after trauma (>24-48 h) is associated with less achievement of fascial closure and more complications. Protective lung ventilation should be employed early, particularly if respiratory compromise is evident. Conservative fluid management and less sedation may decrease delirium and increase definitive abdominal closure rates. Extubation may be performed before definitive abdominal closure in selected patients. Antibiotic therapy should be brief, targeted and guideline concordant. Survival depends on the underlying disease, the closure method and the course of hospitalization.

SUMMARY

Changes in the treatment of patients with the open abdomen include negative temporary closure, conservative fluid management, early protective lung ventilation, decreased sedation and extubation before abdominal closure in selected patients.

Status quo of the use of DCS concepts and outcome with focus on blunt abdominal trauma : A registry-based analysis from the TraumaRegister DGU®

INTRODUCTION

Damage control surgery (DCS) is a standardized treatment concept in severe abdominal injury. Despite its evident advantages, DCS bears the risk of substantial morbidity and mortality, due to open abdomen therapy (OAT). Thus, identifying the suitable patients for that approach is of utmost importance. Furthermore, little is known about the use of DCS and the related outcome, especially in blunt abdominal trauma.

METHODS

Patients recorded in the TraumaRegister DGU® from 2008 to 2017, and with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 9 and an abdominal injury with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score ≥ 3 were included in that registry-based analysis. Patients with DCS and temporary abdominal closure (TAC) were compared with patients who were treated with a laparotomy and primary closure (non-DCS) and those who did receive non-operative management (NOM). Following descriptive analysis, a matched-pairs study was conducted to evaluate differences and outcomes between DCS and non-DCS group. Matching criteria were age, abdominal trauma severity, and hemodynamical instability at the scene.

RESULTS

The injury mechanism was predominantly blunt (87.1%). Of the 8226 patients included, 2351 received NOM, 5011 underwent laparotomy and primary abdominal closure (non-DCS), and 864 were managed with DCS. Thus, 785 patient pairs were analysed. The rate of hepatic injuries AIS > 3 differed between the groups (DCS 50.3% vs. non-DCS 18.1%). DCS patients had a higher ISS (p = 0.023), required more significant volumes of fluids, more catecholamines, and transfusions (p < 0.001). More DCS patients were in shock at the accident scene (p = 0.022). DCS patients had a higher number of severe hepatic (AIS score ≥ 3) and gastrointestinal injuries and more vascular injuries. Most severe abdominal injuries in non-DCS patients were splenic injuries (AIS, 4 and 5) (52.1% versus 37.9%, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

DCS is a strategy used in unstable trauma patients, severe hepatic, gastrointestinal, multiple abdominal injuries, and mass transfusions. The expected survival rates were achieved in such extreme trauma situations.

Age Is But a Number: Damage Control Surgery Outcomes in Geriatric Emergency General Surgery

BACKGROUND

Damage control surgery (DCS) with temporary abdominal closure (TAC) is increasingly utilized in emergency general surgery (EGS). As the population ages, more geriatric patients (GP) are undergoing EGS operations. Concern exists for GP's ability to tolerate DCS. We hypothesize that DCS in GP does not increase morbidity or mortality and has similar rates of primary closure compared to non-geriatric patients (NGP).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review from 2014-2020 was conducted on all non-trauma EGS patients who underwent DCS with TAC. Demographics, admission lab values, fluid amounts, length of stay (LOS), timing of closure, post-operative complications and mortality were collected. GP were compared to NGP and results were analyzed using Chi square and Wilcox signed rank test.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients (n = 50, <65 y; n = 48, ≥65 y) met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in median number of operations (3 versus 2), time to primary closure (2.5 versus 3 d), hospital LOS (19 versus 17.5 d), ICU LOS (11 versus 8 d), rate of primary closure (66% versus 56%), post op ileus (44% versus 48%), abscess (14% versus 10%), need for surgery after closure (32% versus 19%), anastomotic dehiscence (16% versus 6%), or mortality (34% versus 42%). Average time until take back after index procedure did not vary significantly between young and elderly group (45.8 versus 38.5 h; P = 0.89). GP were more likely to have hypertension (83% versus 50%; P ≤ 0.05), atrial fibrillation (25% versus 4%; P ≤ 0.05) and lower median heart rate compared to NGP (90 versus 103; P ≤ 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

DCS with TAC in geriatric EGS patients achieves similar outcomes and mortality to younger patients. Indication, not age, should factor into the decision to perform DCS.

Early Initiation of a Standardized Open Abdomen Treatment With Vacuum Assisted Mesh-Mediated Fascial Traction Achieves Best Results

Background: The open abdomen (OA) is an important approach for managing intra-abdominal catastrophes and continues to be the standard of care. Complete fascial closure is an essential treatment objective and can be achieved by the use of different dynamic closure techniques. Both surgical technique and-decision making are essential for optimal patient outcome in terms of fascial closure. The aim of this study was to analyse patients' outcome after the use of mesh-mediated fascial traction (MMFT) associated with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and identify important factors that negatively influenced final fascial closure. Methods: A single center ambispective analysis was performed including all patients treated for an open abdomen in a tertiary referral center from 3/2011 till 2/2020. All patients with a minimum survival >24 h after initiation of treatment were analyzed. The data concerning patient management was collected and entered into the Open Abdomen Route of the European Hernia Society (EHS). Patient basic characteristics considering OA indication, primary fascial closure, as well as important features in surgical technique including time after index procedure to start mesh mediated fascial traction, surgical closure techniques and patients' long-term outcomes were analyzed. Results: Data were obtained from 152 patients who underwent open abdomen therapy (OAT) in a single center study. Indications for OAT as per-protocol analysis were sepsis (33.3%), abdominal compartment syndrome (31.6%), followed by peritonitis (24.2%), abdominal trauma (8.3%) and burst abdomen (2.4%). Overall fascial closure rate was 80% as in the per-protocol analysis. When patients that started OA management with MMFT and NPWT from the initial surgery a significantly better fascial closure rate was achieved compared to patients that started 3 or more days later (p < 0.001). An incisional hernia developed in 35.8% of patients alive with a median follow-up of 49 months (range 6-96 months). Conclusion: Our main findings emphasize the importance of a standardized treatment plan, initiated early on during management of the OA. The use of vacuum assisted closure in combination with MMFT showed high rates of fascial closure. Absence of initial intraperitoneal NPWT as well as delayed start of MMFT were risk factors for non-fascial closure. Initiation of OA with VACM should not be unnecessary delayed.

Factors influencing the fascial closure rate after open abdomen treatment: Results from the European Hernia Society (EuraHS) Registry : Surgical technique matters

Purpose

Definitive fascial closure is an essential treatment objective after open abdomen treatment and mitigates morbidity and mortality. There is a paucity of evidence on factors that promote or prevent definitive fascial closure.

Methods

A multi-center multivariable analysis of data from the Open Abdomen Route of the European Hernia Society included all cases between 1 May 2015 and 31 December 2019. Different treatment elements, i.e. the use of a visceral protective layer, negative-pressure wound therapy and dynamic closure techniques, as well as patient characteristics were included in the multivariable analysis. The study was registered in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform via the German Registry for Clinical Trials (DRK00021719).

Results

Data were included from 630 patients from eleven surgical departments in six European countries. Indications for OAT were peritonitis (46%), abdominal compartment syndrome (20.5%), burst abdomen (11.3%), abdominal trauma (9%), and other conditions (13.2%). The overall definitive fascial closure rate was 57.5% in the intention-to-treat analysis and 71% in the per-protocol analysis. The multivariable analysis showed a positive correlation of negative-pressure wound therapy (odds ratio: 2.496, p < 0.001) and dynamic closure techniques (odds ratio: 2.687, p < 0.001) with fascial closure and a negative correlation of intra-abdominal contamination (odds ratio: 0.630, p = 0.029) and the number of surgical procedures before OAT (odds ratio: 0.740, p = 0.005) with DFC.

Conclusion

The clinical course and prognosis of open abdomen treatment can significantly be improved by the use of treatment elements such as negative-pressure wound therapy and dynamic closure techniques, which are associated with definitive fascial closure.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10029-020-02336-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dynamic Fascial Closure With Vacuum-Assisted Wound Closure and Mesh-Mediated Fascial Traction (VAWCM) Treatment of the Open Abdomen-An Updated Systematic Review

Introduction: Several different temporary abdominal closure techniques are described in the context of open abdomen treatment. Techniques based on dynamic fascial closure combined with negative pressure therapy have gained popularity and seem to result in the highest fascial closure rates without increased complications and are highlighted in recent guidelines and recommendations. One dynamic closure technique is the vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM) technique, first described in 2007. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the VAWCM technique regarding a number of short- and long-term results.

Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published between January 1, 2006 and May 8, 2020. The review was independently performed by the two authors according to the PRISMA statements for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Results were pooled for presentation of weighted means when applicable.

Results: A total of 220 articles were screened by title and abstract. Thirty-two articles were assessed for eligibility by full-text review and 15 articles finally remained for review. A total of 600 patients treated with VAWCM were included. The pooled weighted means were as follows: fascial closure, 83.5%; enteroatmospheric fistula, 5.6%; planned ventral hernia, 6.2%; in-hospital survival, 72%; and incisional hernia incidence, 40.5%. Long-term survival ranged between 22 and 72%. Quality of life (SF-36) was reported in two studies showing lower scores than the population mean especially in physical domains. Incisional hernia resulted in lower scores in one but not in the other study.

Discussion: The results of 600 VAWCM-treated patients from 15 studies were evaluated in this systematic review. Earlier findings with high fascial closure rates, low enteroatmospheric fistula, and planned ventral hernia rates as well as high incisional hernia incidences were underlined. Permanent mesh for efficient fascial traction and reinforcement at fascial closure seem to be the next step in evolving an optimal temporary closure technique in open abdomen treatment.

Laparostomy and temporary abdominal closure outcomes in emergency non-trauma surgery and parameters affecting early definite primary fascial closure

BACKGROUND

The open abdomen or laparostomy is a great advance of surgery based on the concept of damage control surgery. Aim of the study is to review the laparostomy outcomes of non-trauma emergency surgery patients in a district general hospital and identify parameters affecting early definite primary fascial closure.

METHODS

The records of all non-trauma emergency surgical patients who underwent laparostomy in a three-year period in a single institute were studied retrospectively. Outcomes included length of stay, morbidity, mortality, readmission rates, number of re-look operations, rate of definite primary fascial closure and time to closure.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were included. Morbidity was 84.4% and mortality rates were 21.9% (in-hospital), 18.8% (30-day) and 46.9% (overall). Median length of hospital stay was 22 days. Rate of primary fascial closure was 87.5% and median time to closure was two days. The number of relook operations was the only independent prognostic factor of definite early primary fascial closure, with higher rates of closure in patients with 1-2 relooks.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the open abdomen has been demonstrated to improve survival, the precise role in abdominal sepsis has not been elucidated. Current consensus does not support use of open abdomen routinely, however in selected situations it becomes unavoidable. Laparostomy is a valid option in non-trauma emergency surgery and can be managed safely in a district hospital. High closure rates can be achieved if one or two re-look operations are performed with an early attempt for closure.

Dynamic closure techniques for treatment of an open abdomen: an update

BACKGROUND

The open abdomen (OA) is an important approach for managing intra-abdominal catastrophes and continues to be the standard of care. Despite this, challenges remain as it is associated with a high incidence of complications and poor outcomes. The objective is to perform a systematic review on dynamic closure techniques for fascial closure during open abdomen management.

METHODS

An electronic database search was conducted involving 4 different databases (MEDLINE (PubMed), SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE (WOS) and EMBASE). All studies that described dynamic closure techniques in OA patients were eligible for inclusion. Data collected were synthesized by each outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the final synthesis. Overall methodological quality was low with a high number of retrospective observational studies and low number of patients. All included studies are observational cohort studies. No studies reported on the use of either Wittmann patch, dynamic retention sutures or ABRA system. Two studies reported on the ABRA system in combination with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT), while 9 reported on mesh-mediated fascial traction (MMFT) combined with NPWT. Other types of fascial traction, either by dynamic suture lines or by a self-made silastic tube system, and NPWT were reported in 2 studies. Overall closure rates are 93.2% for the ABRA system + NPWT versus 72.0% for the mesh-mediated fascial traction + NPWT.

CONCLUSION

Careful selection and good management of OA patients will avoid prolonged treatment and facilitate early fascial closure. Future research should focus on comparison of different temporary dynamic closure techniques to evolve toward best treatment options, in terms of both fascial closure rates and long-term incisional hernia rates.

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.

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.

Effect of abdominal negative-pressure wound therapy on the measurement of intra-abdominal pressure

BACKGROUND

In critically ill surgical patients undergoing abdominal negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT), it remains uncertain whether or not intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurements should be obtained when NPWT is activated. We aimed to determine agreement between IAP measured with and without NPWT.

METHODS

In this analytic cross-sectional study, critically ill surgical adults (≥18 y) requiring abdominal NPWT for temporary abdominal closure after a damage control laparotomy were selected. Patients with urinary tract injuries or with pelvic packing were excluded. Paired IAP measures were performed in the same patient, with and without NPWT; two different operators performed the measures unaware of the other's result. Bland-Altman methods assessed the agreement between the two measures. Subgroup analyses (trauma and nontrauma) were performed.

RESULTS

There were 198 IAP measures (99 pairs) in 38 patients. Mean IAP with and without NPWT were 8.33 (standard deviation 4.01) and 8.65 (standard deviation 4.04), respectively. Mean IAP difference was -0.323 (95% confidence interval -0.748 to 0.101), and reference range for difference was -4.579 to 3.932 (P = 0.864). From 112 IAP measures (56 pairs) in 21 trauma patients, mean IAP difference was -0.268 (95% confidence interval -0.867 to 0.331), and reference range for the difference was -4.740 to 4.204 (P = 0.427).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no statistically significant disagreement in IAP measures. IAP could be measured with or without NPWT. In critically ill surgical patients with abdominal NPWT for temporary abdominal closure, monitoring and management of IAP either with or without NPWT is recommended.

Open abdomen in liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Damage control laparotomy with vacuum assisted closure (VAC) is used for selective cases in trauma. In liver transplantation, VAC has also been applied for management of intra-operative hemorrhage. The primary objective was to evaluate peri-operative blood loss and blood product utilization in VAC compared to primary abdominal closure (PAC) at the index transplant operation.

METHODS

Retrospective review of all adults undergoing deceased donor liver transplantation (2007-2011) at a single center tertiary care institution.

RESULTS

201 deceased donor liver transplantations were performed, with 167 PAC and 34 VAC cases. Intra-operative blood loss (4.4L vs 10.7L), cell saver return (1399 ml vs 3998 ml), FFP (7.6U vs 15.9U) and PLT requirements (8.5U vs 18.3U), were all significantly elevated in VAC compared to PAC. VAC patients had significantly increased RBC, FFP, PLT, and total volume requirements during initial ICU admission. 30 PAC cases required on demand laparotomy and most commonly for post-operative bleeding.

CONCLUSION

In liver transplantation, application of VAC secondary to massive intra-operative exsanguination was safely utilized. Further evaluation is required to identify long-term morbidity and mortality.

Combing a novel device and negative pressure wound therapy for managing the wound around a colostomy in the open abdomen: A case report

RATIONALE

An open abdomen complicated with small-bowel fistulae becomes a complex wound for local infection, systemic sepsis and persistent soiling irritation by intestinal content. While controlling the fistulae drainage, protecting surrounding skin, healing the wound maybe a challenge.

PATIENT CONCERNS

In this paper we described a 68-year-old female was admitted to emergency surgery in general surgery department with severe abdomen pain. Resection part of the injured small bowel, drainage of the intra-abdominal abscess, and fashioning of a colostomy were performed.

DIAGNOSES

She failed to improve and ultimately there was tenderness and lot of pus under the skin around the fistulae. The wound started as a 3-cm lesion and progressed to a 6 ×13  (78 cm) around the stoma.

INTERVENTIONS

In our case we present a novel device for managing colostomy wound combination with negative pressure wound therapy.

OUTCOMES

This tube allows for an effective drainage of small-bowel secretion and a safe build-up of granulation tissue. Also it could be a barrier between the bowel suction point and foam.

LESSONS

Management of open abdomen wound involves initial dressing changes, antibiotic use and cutaneous closure. When compared with traditional dressing changes, the NPWT offers several advantages including increased granulation tissue formation, reduction in bacterial colonization, decreased of bowel edema and wound size, and enhanced neovascularization.

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.