Critical care issues in managing complex open abdominal wound

Comparison of Continuous Albumin Infusion, Bolus Albumin, and Crystalloid Fluid Administration in Open-Abdomen Surgical-Trauma Patients

Background: The open abdomen (OA), an intentional lack of fascial closure following abdominal cavity opening, is utilized for various indications among surgical-trauma patients. Among intravenous fluid options, administration of albumin as a continuous infusion may improve outcomes in OA. The purpose of this study is to compare the time to abdomen closure among patients with OA according to type of fluid administration. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with OA from 2012 through 2018 and stratified by intravenous fluid administration into one of three groups: continuous albumin infusion, intermittent bolus albumin, or crystalloid. The primary outcome was median time to abdomen closure. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic parameters, length of stay (LOS), and mortality. Time to final abdomen closure was analyzed by Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Eighty-four patients were included with 28 in each cohort. Compared to crystalloids (44.2 [interquartile range, IQR, 36.3-62.9] hours), median time to abdomen closure was significantly longer in bolus albumin (79.0 [IQR, 44.5-130.8] hours; P = .002) and continuous albumin groups (63.6 [IQR, 42.9-139.6] hours; P = .001) in Cox regression analysis. The incidence of hospital mortality was highest in the bolus albumin cohort (continuous albumin: 21.4% vs bolus albumin: 50.0% vs crystalloid: 25.0%; P = .044). All other secondary outcomes were similar between groups. Conclusions: Among patients with OA, administration of intravenous crystalloid was associated with the shortest time to abdomen closure compared to bolus or continuous albumin. Further evaluation of continuous albumin infusion in patients with OA is needed.

Retrospective Study of Indications and Outcomes of Open Abdomen with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Technique for Abdominal Sepsis in a Tertiary Referral Centre

In patients with advanced sepsis from abdominal disease, the open abdomen (OA) technique as part of a damage control surgery (DCS) approach enables relook surgery to control infection, defer intestinal anastomosis, and prevent intra-abdominal hypertension. Limited evidence is available on key outcomes, such as mortality and rate of definitive fascial closure (DFC), which are needed for surgeons to select patients and adequate therapeutic strategies. Abdominal closure with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has shown rates of DFC around 90%. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate in-hospital survival and factors associated with mortality in acute, non-trauma patients treated using the OA technique and NPWT for sepsis from abdominal disease. Fifty consecutive patients treated using the OA technique and NPWT between February 2015 and July 2022 were included. Overall mortality was 32%. Among surviving patients, 97.7% of cases reached DFC, and the overall complication rate was 58.8%, with one case of entero-atmospheric fistula. At univariable analysis, age (p = 0.009), ASA IV status (<0.001), Mannheim Peritonitis Index > 30 (p = 0.001) and APACHE II score (p < 0.001) were associated with increased mortality. At multivariable analysis, higher APACHE II was a predictor of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.136, 95% CI 1.08−4.22; p = 0.029). Although very resource-intensive, DCS and the OA technique are valuable tools to manage patients with advanced abdominal sepsis, allowing reduced mortality and high DFC rates.

Dexmedetomidine and paralytic exposure after damage control laparotomy: risk factors for delirium? Results from the EAST SLEEP-TIME multicenter trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate factors associated with ICU delirium in patients who underwent damage control laparotomy (DCL), with the hypothesis that benzodiazepines and paralytic infusions would be associated with increased delirium risk. We also sought to evaluate the differences in sedation practices between trauma (T) and non-trauma (NT) patients.

METHODS

We reviewed retrospective data from 15 centers in the EAST SLEEP-TIME registry admitted from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018. We included all adults undergoing DCL, regardless of diagnosis, who had completed daily Richmond Agitation Sedation Score (RASS) and Confusion Assessment Method-ICU (CAM-ICU). We excluded patients younger than 18 years, pregnant women, prisoners and patients who died before the first re-laparotomy. Data collected included age, number of re-laparotomies after DCL, duration of paralytic infusion, duration and type of sedative and opioid infusions as well as daily CAM-ICU and RASS scores to analyze risk factors associated with the proportion of delirium-free/coma-free ICU days during the first 30 days (DF/CF-ICU-30) using multivariate linear regression.

RESULTS

A 353 patient subset (73.2% trauma) from the overall 567-patient cohort had complete daily RASS and CAM-ICU data. NT patients were older (58.9 ± 16.0 years vs 40.5 ± 17.0 years [p < 0.001]). Mean DF/CF-ICU-30 days was 73.7 ± 96.4% for the NT and 51.3 ± 38.7% in the T patients (p = 0.030). More T patients were exposed to Midazolam, 41.3% vs 20.3% (p = 0.002). More T patients were exposed to Propofol, 91.0% vs 71.9% (p < 0.001) with longer infusion times in T compared to NT (71.2 ± 85.9 vs 48.9 ± 69.8 h [p = 0.017]). Paralytic infusions were also used more in T compared to NT, 34.8% vs 18.2% (p < 0.001). Using linear regression, dexmedetomidine infusion and paralytic infusions were associated with decreases in DF/CF-ICU-30, (- 2.78 (95%CI [- 5.54, - 0.024], p = 0.040) and (- 7.08 ([- 13.0, - 1.10], p = 0.020) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the relationship between paralytic use and delirium is well-established, the observation that dexmedetomidine exposure is independently associated with increased delirium and coma is novel and bears further study.

Trauma and nontrauma damage-control laparotomy: The difference is delirium (data from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma SLEEP-TIME multicenter trial)

BACKGROUND

Damage-control laparotomy (DCL) has been used for traumatic and nontraumatic indications. We studied factors associated with delirium and outcome in this population.

METHODS

We reviewed DCL patients at 15 centers for 2 years, including demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), diagnosis, operations, and outcomes. We compared 30-day mortality; renal failure requiring dialysis; number of takebacks; hospital, ventilator, and intensive care unit (ICU) days; and delirium-free and coma-free proportion of the first 30 ICU days (DF/CF-ICU-30) between trauma (T) and nontrauma (NT) patients. We performed linear regression for DF/CF-ICU-30, including age, sex, CCI, achievement of primary fascial closure (PFC), small and large bowel resection, bowel discontinuity, abdominal vascular procedures, and trauma as covariates. We performed one-way analysis of variance for DF/CF-ICU-30 against traumatic brain injury severity as measured by Abbreviated Injury Scale for the head.

RESULTS

Among 554 DCL patients (25.8% NT), NT patients were older (58.9 ± 15.8 vs. 39.7 ± 17.0 years, p < 0.001), more female (45.5% vs. 22.1%, p < 0.001), and had higher CCI (4.7 ± 3.3 vs. 1.1 ± 2.2, p < 0.001). The number of takebacks (1.7 ± 2.6 vs. 1.5 ± 1.2), time to first takeback (32.0 hours), duration of bowel discontinuity (47.0 hours), and time to PFC were similar (63.2 hours, achieved in 73.5%). Nontrauma and T patients had similar ventilator, ICU, and hospital days and mortality (31.0% NT, 29.8% T). Nontrauma patients had higher rates of renal failure requiring dialysis (36.6% vs. 14.1%, p < 0.001) and postoperative abdominal sepsis (40.1% vs. 17.1%, p < 0.001). Trauma and NT patients had similar number of hours of sedative (89.9 vs. 65.5 hours, p = 0.064) and opioid infusions (106.9 vs. 96.7 hours, p = 0.514), but T had lower DF/CF-ICU-30 (51.1% vs. 73.7%, p = 0.029), indicating more delirium. Linear regression analysis indicated that T was associated with a 32.1% decrease (95% CI, 14.6%-49.5%; p < 0.001) in DF/CF-ICU-30, while achieving PFC was associated with a 25.1% increase (95% CI, 10.2%-40.1%; p = 0.001) in DF/CFICU-30. Increasing Abbreviated Injury Scale for the head was associated with decreased DF/CF-ICU-30 by analysis of variance (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Nontrauma patients had higher incidence of postoperative abdominal sepsis and need for dialysis, while T was independently associated with increased delirium, perhaps because of traumatic brain injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV.

Predictive factors of mortality in open abdomen for abdominal sepsis: a retrospective cohort study on 113 patients

Over the past few years, the open abdomen (OA) as a part of Damage Control Surgery (DCS) has been introduced as a surgical strategy with the intent to reduce the mortality of patients with severe abdominal sepsis. Aims of our study were to analyze the OA effects on patients with abdominal sepsis and identify predictive factors of mortality. Patients admitted to our institution with abdominal sepsis requiring OA from 2010 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were mortality, morbidity and definitive fascial closure (DFC). Comparison between groups was made via univariate and multivariate analyses. On 1474 patients operated for abdominal sepsis, 113 (7.6%) underwent OA. Male gender accounted for 52.2% of cases. Mean age was 68.1 ± 14.3 years. ASA score was > 2 in 87.9%. Mean BMI, APACHE II score and Mannheim Peritonitis Index were 26.4 ± 4.9, 15.3 ± 6.3, and 22.6 ± 7.3, respectively. A negative pressure wound system technique was used in 47% of the cases. Overall, mortality was 43.4%, morbidity 76.6%, and DFC rate was 97.8%. Entero-atmospheric fistula rate was 2.2%. At multivariate analysis, APACHE II score (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.05–1.32; p = 0.005), Frailty Clinical Scale (OR 4.66; 95% CI 3.19–6.12; p < 0.0001) and ASA grade IV (OR 7.86; 95% CI 2.18–28.27; p = 0.002) were significantly associated with mortality. OA seems to be a safe and reliable treatment for critically ill patients with severe abdominal sepsis. Nonetheless, in these patients, co-morbidity and organ failure remain the major obstacles to a better prognosis.

More medications, more problems: results from the Sedation Level after Emergent Exlap with Packing for TRAUMA (SLEEP-TRAUMA) study

Purpose

Sedation management of trauma patients after damage control laparotomy (DCL) has not been optimized. We evaluated if shorter sedation exposure was associated with increased proportion of delirium-free/coma-free (DF/CF-ICU) days and change in time to definitive fascial closure (DFC).

Methods

We reviewed trauma DCL patients at an ACS-verified level I center over 5 years as shorter (SE) or longer than median (LE) sedation exposure. We compared demographics, injury patterns, hemodynamic parameters, and injury severity between groups. We calculated the propensity for each patient to achieve DFC using age, gender, ISS, red blood cell transfusion, bowel discontinuity, abdominal vascular injury, and time to first takeback; we then determined the effect of sedation exposure on rate of DFC by multivariate Cox regression, adjusted for propensity to achieve DFC. We used linear regression adjusted for age, ISS, head-AIS, bowel discontinuity, and vascular injury to determine the effect of sedation exposure on the proportion of DF/CF-ICU days.

Results

65 patients (33.8% penetrating) had mean age 41.8 ± 16.0, ISS 27.1 ± 14.2, Head-AIS 1.2 ± 1.6 and median sedation exposure of 2.2 [IQR 0.78, 7.3] days (35 SE and 30 LE). Pattern and severity of solid organ injuries and proportion of small and large bowel and vascular injuries were similar between groups. LE had more abdominal sepsis (23.3% vs 0%, p = 0.003) and enterocutaneous fistula (16.7% vs 0%, p = 0.016), and more ventilator (17.3 ± 12.7 vs 6.1 ± 6.8, p < 0.001), ICU (20.8 ± 14.2 vs 7.2 ± 7.6, p < 0.001), and hospital days (29.6 ± 19.6 vs 13.9 ± 9.0, p < 0.001). DFC was achieved more rapidly in the SE group (2.0 ± 1.5 days vs 3.9 ± 3.7 days [unadjusted], p = 0.023) and SE had a higher proportion of unadjusted DF/CF-ICU days (33.0 ± 32.0% vs 18.1 ± 16.4%, p = 0.020).

SE was associated with an increased proportion of adjusted DF/CF-ICU days by multivariate linear regression (13.1% [95% CI 1.4–24.8%], p = 0.029) and with faster adjusted rate of DFC by multivariate Cox regression (RR 2.28 [95% CI 1.25–4.15, p = 0.007]).

Conclusions

Shorter sedation exposure is associated with increased proportion of DF/CF-ICU days and more rapid DFC after DCL for trauma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00068-020-01524-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Management of peripartum intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome

Normal pregnancy leads to a state of chronically increased intra-abdominal pressure. Obstetric and non-obstetric conditions may increase intra-abdominal pressure further, causing intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome, which leads to maternal organ dysfunction and a compromised fetal state. Limited medical literature exists to guide treatment of pregnant women with these conditions. In this state-of-the-art review, we propose a diagnostic and treatment algorithm for the management of peripartum intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome, informed by newly available studies.

Damage-Control Surgery for Obstetric Hemorrhage

Damage-control surgery (abdominopelvic packing followed by a period of medical stabilization in the intensive care unit) is a life-saving intervention usually reserved for critically injured patients who may not survive an attempt to achieve hemostasis and complete repair of the damage in the operating room. Most obstetricians have little or no experience in this area, although the use of damage-control surgery in selected cases may be life-saving. This approach should be considered when arterial bleeding has been controlled and persistent bleeding is deemed to be secondary to coagulopathy that is refractory to blood product replacement, particularly in the presence of hypothermia, acidosis, and vasopressor requirement. A prototypical (albeit hypothetical) case is described here in which damage-control surgery is indicated.

Sedation and paralytic use in open abdomen patients-results from the EAST SLEEP Survey

BACKGROUND

Patients with an open abdomen after trauma or emergency surgery may benefit from reduced sedation and chemical paralysis. We studied the effect of attending surgeon experience on sedation depth and paralytic use, as well as enteral nutrition and time between laparotomies.

METHODS

We performed an institutional review board-approved survey (Sedation Level after Emergent ExLap without Primary Fascial Closure) of the senior and active Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma membership using Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Inc, Provo, UT). We obtained 393/1,655 responses (23.7%). Spearman's rho was used for ordinal data, and multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for trauma center level and presence of trainees in the relationship between surgeon experience and use of deep sedation.

RESULTS

Surgeon experience was associated with deep sedation (Richmond Agitation and Sedation Score ≤-3, P = .001) and chemical paralysis (P = .001). Surgeon experience was associated with less concern about delirium and more concern for evisceration as the reason for sedation depth (P = .001) and for paralysis (P = .001). Using multivariate logistic regression, surgeon experience was associated with deep sedation (odds ratio 3.6 [95% confidence interval 1.3, 10.4], P = .017 for ≥20 years; odds ratio 3.5 [95% confidence interval 1.1, 10.4], P = .025 for 15-20 years). Trauma center level was also significant (odds ratio 7.2 for Richmond Agitation and Sedation Score ≤-3 [95% confidence interval 1.7, 31.0], P = .008 for level III/IV versus level I/II). Increased surgeon experience was associated with delay of commencement of enteral feeds until return of bowel function (P = .013). Few respondents indicated willingness to extubate or mobilize open abdomen patients. Experienced surgeons were likely to wait for a defined time rather than for normalization of resuscitation markers to perform the first takeback laparotomy (P = .047) and waited longer between subsequent laparotomies (P = .004).

CONCLUSION

There were significant variations in practice among respondents based on the length of time since their last residency or fellowship, including variations that deviate from current best practice for management of patients with an open abdomen.

"Complex abdominal wall" management: evidence-based guidelines of the Italian Consensus Conference

To date, there is no shared consensus on a definition of a complex abdominal wall in elective surgery and in the emergency, on indications, technical details, complications, and follow-up. The purpose of the conference was to lay the foundations for a homogeneous approach to the complex abdominal wall with the primary intent being to attain the following objectives: (1) to develop evidence-based recommendations to define “complex abdominal wall”; (2) indications in emergency and in elective cases; (3) management of “complex abdominal wall”; (4) techniques for temporary abdominal closure. The decompressive laparostomy should be considered in a case of abdominal compartment syndrome in patients with critical conditions or after the failure of a medical treatment or less invasive methods. In the second one, beyond different mechanism, patients with surgical emergency diseases might reach the same pathophysiological end point of trauma patients where a preventive “open abdomen” might be indicated (a temporary abdominal closure: in the case of a non-infected field, the Wittmann patch and the NPWT had the best outcome followed by meshes; in the case of an infected field, NPWT techniques seem to be the preferred). The second priority is to create optimal both general as local conditions for healing: the right antimicrobial management, feeding—preferably by the enteral route—and managing correctly the open abdomen wall. The use of a mesh appears to be—if and when possible—the gold standard. There is a lot of enthusiasm about biological meshes. But the actual evidence supports their use only in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields but above all, to reduce the higher rate of recurrences, the wall anatomy and function should be restored in the midline, with or without component separation technique. On the other site has not to be neglected that the use of monofilament and macroporous non-absorbable meshes, in extraperitoneal position, in the setting of the complex abdomen with contamination, seems to have a cost effective role too. The idea of this consensus conference was mainly to try to bring order in the so copious, but not always so “evident” literature utilizing and exchanging the expertise of different specialists.

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.

The open abdomen, indications, management and definitive closure

The indications for Open Abdomen (OA) are generally all those situations in which is ongoing the development an intra-abdominal hypertension condition (IAH), in order to prevent the development of abdominal compartmental syndrome (ACS). In fact all those involved in care of a critically ill patient should in the first instance think how to prevent IAH and ACS. In case of ACS goal directed therapy to achieve early opening and early closure is the key: paradigm of closure shifts to combination of therapies including negative pressure wound therapy and dynamic closure, in order to reduce complications and avoid incisional hernia. There have been huge studies and progress in survival of critically ill trauma and septic surgical patients: this in part has been through the great work of pioneers, scientific societies and their guidelines; however future studies and continued innovation are needed to better understand optimal treatment strategies and to define more clearly the indications, because OA by itself is still a morbid procedure.

Damage Control and the Open Abdomen: Challenges for the Nonsurgical Intensivist

BACKGROUND

As strategies in acute care surgery focus on damage control to restore physiology, intensivists spanning all disciplines care for an increasing number of patients requiring massive transfusion, temporary abdominal closures, and their sequelae.

OBJECTIVE

To equip the nonsurgical intensivist with evidence-based management principles for patients with an open abdomen after damage control surgery.

DATA SOURCE

Search of PubMed database and manual review of bibliographies from selected articles.

DATA SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Temporary abdominal closure improves outcomes in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome, hemorrhagic shock, and intra-abdominal sepsis but creates new challenges with electrolyte derangement, hypovolemia, malnutrition, enteric fistulas, and loss of abdominal wall domain. Intensive care of such patients mandates attention to resuscitation, sepsis control, and expedient abdominal closure.

One year experience of swine dermal non-crosslinked collagen prostheses for abdominal wall repairs in elective and emergency surgery

Introduction

The approach to the abdominal wall surgical repair is dramatically changed in the last years. This study evaluates our institutional outcomes about the usage of biological meshes for abdominal wall repair in different setting: in elective surgery, in emergency surgery and in abdominal wall repair following open abdomen (OA) procedure.

Methods

A database was prospectively conducted (January–December 2014) and data were reviewed for patients who underwent to an abdominal wall reconstruction with swine dermal non-cross linked collagens prostheses either in elective or emergency setting, and following OA/laparostomy procedure. Demographic data, co-morbidities, indications for surgery, intra-operative details, post-operative complications and outcome (peri-operative, 3, 6, 9-months) were analyzed.

Results

A total of 30 cases were reported: 9 in elective surgery (Group 1), 4 in emergency surgery (Group 2) and 17 with abdominal wall closure following OA management (Group 3). Two meshes were removed: 1 in the Group 1 and 1 in the Group 3. During follow-up only one patient in the Group 3 had a recurrence of the incisional hernia. Mortality rate was 11.1 % at 3 months in Group 1, 0 % in the Group 2, and 29.4 % in peri-operative period in the Group 3.

Conclusions

The use of non-cross linked biological meshes can be safe and versatile in different situations from elective to emergency surgery, and also for the reconstruction of the abdominal wall after OA procedure, with an acceptable recurrence and mortality rate.

Planned re-laparotomy and the need for optimization of physiology and immunology

Planned re-laparotomy or damage control laparotomy (DCL), first described by Dr. Harlan Stone in 1983, has become a widely utilized technique in a broad range of patients and operative situations. Studies have validated the use of DCL by demonstrating decreased mortality and morbidity in trauma, general surgery and abdominal vascular catastrophes. Indications for planned re-laparotomy include severe physiologic derangements, coagulopathy, concern for bowel ischemia, and abdominal compartment syndrome. The immunology of DCL patients is not well described in humans, but promising animal studies suggest a benefit from the open abdomen (OA) and several human trials on this subject are currently underway. Optimal critical care of patients with OA's, including sedation, paralysis, nutrition, antimicrobial and fluid management strategies have been associated with improved closure rates and recovery.

Nutritional support in patients following damage control laparotomy with an open abdomen

INTRODUCTION

Damage control laparotomy (DCL) and the open abdomen have been well accepted following either severe abdominal trauma or emergency surgical disease. As DCL is increasingly utilized as a therapeutic option, appropriate management of the post-DCL patient is important. Early caloric support by enteral nutrition (EN) in the critically ill patient improves wound healing and decreases septic complications, lung injury, and multi-system organ failure. However, following DCL, nutritional strategies can be challenging and, at times, even daunting.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though limited data exist, the use of early EN following DCL seems safe, provided that the patient is not undergoing active resuscitation or the bowel is not in discontinuity. It is unknown as to whether EN in the open abdomen reduces septic complications, prevents enterocutaneous fistula (ECF), or alters the timing of definitive abdominal wall closure. Future investigation in a prospective manner may help elucidate these important questions.

Open abdominal management after damage-control laparotomy for trauma: a prospective observational American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study

BACKGROUND

We conducted a prospective observational multi-institutional study to examine the natural history of the open abdomen (OA) after trauma and identify risk factors for failure to achieve definitive primary fascial closure (DPC) after OA use in trauma.

METHODS

Adults requiring OA for trauma were enrolled during a 2-year period. Demographics, presentation, and management variables were used to compare primary fascial closure and non-primary fascial closure patients, with logistic regression used to identify independent risk factors for failure to achieve primary fascial closure.

RESULTS

A total of 572 patients from 14 American College of Surgeons-verified Level I trauma centers were enrolled. The majority were male (79%), mean (SD) age 39 (17) years. Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 15 or greater in 85% of patients and 84% had an abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 3 or greater. Overall mortality was 23%. Initial primary fascial closure with unaltered native fascia was achieved in 379 patients (66%). Patients surviving at least 48 hours were grouped into those achieving DPC and those who did not achieve DPC after OA use. After logistic regression, independent risk factors for failure to achieve DPC included the number of reexplorations required (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2-1.6; p < 0.001) the development of intra-abdominal abscess/sepsis (AOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-4.8; p = 0.011) bloodstream infection (AOR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.7; p = 0.017), acute renal failure (AOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-5.7; p = 0.007), enteric fistula (AOR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.2-32.8; p = 0.010) and ISS of greater than 15 (AOR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.9; p = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

Our study identifies independent risk factors associated with failure to achieve primary fascial closure during initial hospitalization after OA use for trauma. Additional study is required to validate appropriate algorithms that optimize the opportunity to achieve primary fascial closure and outcomes in this population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic study, level III.

Challenges in the Management of the Open Abdomen

First described more than 60 years ago, the open abdomen has now become a relatively common entity in surgical ICUs. Although the indications for an open abdomen have evolved since the original description of the damage control laparotomy, the goal remains to provide an unstable or critically ill patient time to correct their physiologic derangements. Temporary abdominal closure is thus used as a bridge to definitive repair and closure. Unfortunately, the open abdomen is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and recent studies have suggested an overuse of the technique. Once the decision is made to proceed with an open abdomen, multiple options exist for temporary abdominal closure. The hope is to obtain definitive closure shortly thereafter in an attempt to reduce potential complications including intra-abdominal infection or enteroatmospheric fistula. Options for temporary closure range from the Bogotá bag to vacuum-assisted techniques; a combined technique of sequential fascial closure with vacuum assistance has recently been shown to result in 100% fascial approximation. In situations where fascial closure is unattainable, temporary coverage with a skin graft may be employed, followed by late abdominal closure via complex abdominal herniorrhaphy. Even using advanced methods such as component separation or a “pork sandwich” technique, the complication and recurrence rates remain high. A careful understanding of the indications, optimal management, and potential complications of the open abdomen is necessary to limit its overuse and ultimately reduce some of the challenges associated with it.