Efficacy and safety of active negative pressure peritoneal therapy for reducing the systemic inflammatory response after damage control laparotomy (the Intra-peritoneal Vacuum Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

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.

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Open Abdomen in a Critically Ill Patient

One of the damage control strategies used to avoid or treat abdominal compartment syndrome is “open abdomen (OA),” where the facial edges and the skin is left open, exposing the abdominal viscera. Although it reduces the mortality both in trauma and non-trauma abdominal complications, it does create a significant challenge in an intensive care setting, as it has physiological consequences that need early recognition and prompt treatment both in the intensive care unit and in the operating room. The article aims to review literature on “open abdomen,” describe the challenges in such cases, and proposes a guideline for the intensivist in managing a patient with an OA.

How to cite this article: Mitra LG, Saluja V, Dhingra U. Open Abdomen in a Critically Ill Patient. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 4):S193–S200.

Cytokines and Chemokines in Pediatric Appendicitis: A Multiplex Analysis of Inflammatory Protein Mediators

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to demonstrate the potential of precision medicine to describe the inflammatory landscape present in children with suspected appendicitis. Our primary objective was to determine levels of seven inflammatory protein mediators previously associated with intra-abdominal inflammation (C-reactive protein-CRP, procalcitonin-PCT, interleukin-6 (IL), IL-8, IL-10, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1-MCP-1, and serum amyloid A-SAA) in a cohort of children with suspected appendicitis. Subsequently, using a multiplex proteomics approach, we examined an expansive array of novel candidate cytokine and chemokines within this population.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of targeted proteomics data from Alberta Sepsis Network studies. Plasma mediator levels, analyzed by Luminex multiplex assays, were evaluated in children aged 5-17 years with nonappendicitis abdominal pain (NAAP), acute appendicitis (AA), and nonappendicitis sepsis (NAS). We used multivariate regression analysis to evaluate the seven target proteins, followed by decision tree and heat mapping analyses for all proteins evaluated.

RESULTS

185 children were included: 83 with NAAP, 79 AA, and 23 NAS. Plasma levels of IL-6, CRP, MCP-1, PCT, and SAA were significantly different in children with AA compared to those with NAAP (p < 0.001). Expansive proteomic analysis demonstrated 6 patterns in inflammatory mediator profiles based on severity of illness. A decision tree incorporating the proteins CRP, ferritin, SAA, regulated on activation normal T-cell expressed and secreted (RANTES), monokine induced by gamma interferon (MIG), and PCT demonstrated excellent specificity (0.920) and negative predictive value (0.882) for children with appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiplex proteomic analyses described the inflammatory landscape of children presenting to the ED with suspected appendicitis. We have demonstrated the feasibility of this approach to identify potential novel candidate cytokines/chemokine patterns associated with a specific illness (appendicitis) amongst those with a broad ED presentation (abdominal pain). This approach can be modelled for future research initiatives in pediatric emergency medicine.

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.

"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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Discussion

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

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03163095.

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.

High Mobility Group Box-1 Protein and Outcomes in Critically Ill Surgical Patients Requiring Open Abdominal Management

Background. Previous studies assessing various cytokines in the critically ill/injured have been uninformative in terms of translating to clinical care management. Animal abdominal sepsis work suggests that enhanced intraperitoneal (IP) clearance of Damage-Associated Molecular Patterns (DAMPs) improves outcome. Thus measuring the responses of DAMPs offers alternate potential insights and a representative DAMP, High Mobility Group Box-1 protein (HMGB-1), was considered. While IP biomediators are being recognized in critical illness/trauma, HMGB-1 behaviour has not been examined in open abdomen (OA) management. Methods. A modified protocol for HMGB-1 detection was used to examine plasma/IP fluid samples from 44 critically ill/injured OA patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing two negative pressure peritoneal therapies (NPPT): Active NPPT (ANPPT) and Barker's Vacuum Pack NPPT (BVP). Samples were collected and analyzed at the time of laparotomy and at 24 and 48 hours after. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in survivor versus nonsurvivor HMGB-1 plasma or IP concentrations at baseline, 24 hours, or 48 hours. However, plasma HMGB-1 levels tended to increase continuously in the BVP cohort. Conclusions. HMGB-1 appeared to behave differently between NPPT cohorts. Further studies are needed to elucidate the relationship of HMGB-1 and outcomes in septic/injured patients.

Increased pressure within the abdominal compartment: intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews recent developments related to intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH)/abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and clinical practice guidelines published in 2013.

RECENT FINDINGS

IAH/ACS often develops because of the acute intestinal distress syndrome. Although the incidence of postinjury ACS is decreasing, IAH remains common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality among critically ill/injured patients. Many risk factors for IAH include those findings suggested to be indications for use of damage control surgery in trauma patients. Medical management strategies for IAH/ACS include sedation/analgesia, neuromuscular blocking and prokinetic agents, enteral decompression tubes, interventions that decrease fluid balance, and percutaneous catheter drainage. IAH/ACS may be prevented in patients undergoing laparotomy by leaving the abdomen open where appropriate. If ACS cannot be prevented with medical or surgical management strategies or treated with percutaneous catheter drainage, guidelines recommend urgent decompressive laparotomy. Use of negative pressure peritoneal therapy for temporary closure of the open abdomen may improve the systemic inflammatory response and patient-important outcomes.

SUMMARY

In the last 15 years, investigators have better clarified the pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, and appropriate prevention of IAH/ACS. Subsequent study should be aimed at understanding which treatments effectively lower intra-abdominal pressure and whether these treatments ultimately affect patient-important outcomes.

International consensus conference on open abdomen in trauma

BACKGROUND

A part of damage-control laparotomy is to leave the fascial edges and the skin open to avoid abdominal compartment syndrome and allow further explorations. This condition, known as open abdomen (OA), although effective, is associated with severe complications. Our aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations to define indications for OA, techniques for temporary abdominal closure, management of enteric fistulas, and methods of definitive wall closure.

METHODS

The literature from 1990 to 2014 was systematically screened according to PRISMA [Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses] protocol. Seventy-six articles were reviewed by a panel of experts to assign grade of recommendations (GoR) and level of evidence (LoE) using the GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation] system, and an international consensus conference was held.

RESULTS

OA in trauma is indicated at the end of damage-control laparotomy, in the presence of visceral swelling, for a second look in vascular injuries or gross contamination, in the case of abdominal wall loss, and if medical treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome has failed (GoR B, LoE II). Negative-pressure wound therapy is the recommended temporary abdominal closure technique to drain peritoneal fluid, improve nursing, and prevent fascial retraction (GoR B, LoE I). Lack of OA closure within 8 days (GoR C, LoE II), bowel injuries, high-volume replacement, and use of polypropylene mesh over the bowel (GoR C, LoE I) are risk factors for frozen abdomen and fistula formation. Negative-pressure wound therapy allows to isolate the fistula and protect the surrounding tissues from spillage until granulation (GoR C, LoE II). Correction of fistula is performed after 6 months to 12 months. Definitive closure of OA has to be obtained early (GoR C, LoE I) with direct suture, traction devices, component separation with or without mesh. Biologic meshes are an option for wall reinforcement if bacterial contamination is present (GoR C, LoE II).

CONCLUSION

OA and negative-pressure techniques improve the care of trauma patients, but closure must be achieved early to avoid complications.

Negative pressure wound therapy for serious dog bites of extremities: a prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to investigate the emergency treatment of serious dog bite lacerations on limbs and to identify whether negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) was beneficial in these instances.

METHODS

A total of 580 cases with serious limb lacerations due to dog bites were randomly divided into 2 groups. After thorough debridement, the limb lacerations of group A (n = 329) were left open. The remaining cases (n = 251) were randomly divided into 2 subgroups, group B and group C, which were treated with 125 and 75 mm Hg of continuous negative pressure, respectively. Antibiotics were only used in cases where there were systemic signs of wound infection, and were not given prophylactically. The infection rate, infection time, and healing time were analyzed.

RESULTS

The wound infection rates of groups A, B, and C were 9.1%, 4.1%, and 3.9%, respectively. The infection times of the 3 groups were 26.3 ± 11.6, 159.8 ± 13.4, and 166.4 ± 16.2 hours, respectively. The recovery times of the infection patients in the 3 groups were 19.2 ± 4.6, 13.2 ± 2.1, and 12.7 ± 2.3 days, respectively, and in the noninfection patients, the recovery times were 15.6 ± 2.7, 10.1 ± 2.3, and 10.5 ± 1.9 days, respectively. In groups B (-125 mm Hg) and C (-75 mm Hg), the infection rate, infection time, and healing time showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Patients with serious dog bite laceration on limbs could benefit from NPWT. Compared with the traditional treatment of leaving the wounds open, NPWT reduced the infection rate and shortened recovery time. When NPWT was performed, low negative pressure (-75 mm Hg) had the same positive effects as high pressure (-125 mm Hg). Prophylactic antibiotics administration is not recommended for treating this kind of laceration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level II.

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

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

This randomized trial observed a survival difference between patients randomized to the ABThera versus Barker's vacuum pack after abbreviated laparotomy. As this difference did not seem to be mediated by improved peritoneal fluid drainage, fascial closure rates, or markers of systemic inflammation, it should be confirmed by a multicenter trial.

Objective:

To determine whether active negative pressure peritoneal therapy with the ABThera temporary abdominal closure device reduces systemic inflammation after abbreviated laparotomy.

Background:

Excessive systemic inflammation after abdominal injury or intra-abdominal sepsis is associated with poor outcomes.

Methods:

We conducted a single-center, randomized controlled trial. Forty-five adults with abdominal injury (46.7%) or intra-abdominal sepsis (52.3%) were randomly allocated to the ABThera (n = 23) or Barker's vacuum pack (n = 22). On study days 1, 2, 3, 7, and 28, blood and peritoneal fluid were collected. The primary endpoint was the difference in the plasma concentration of interleukin-6 (IL-6) 24 and 48 hours after temporary abdominal closure application.

Results:

There was a significantly lower peritoneal fluid drainage from the ABThera at 48 hours after randomization. Despite this, there was no difference in plasma concentration of IL-6 at baseline versus 24 (P = 0.52) or 48 hours (P = 0.82) between the groups. There was also no significant intergroup difference in the plasma concentrations of IL-1β, −8, −10, or −12 p70 or tumor necrosis factor α between these time points. The cumulative incidence of primary fascial closure at 90 days was similar between groups (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.82–3.0; P = 0.17). However, 90-day mortality was improved in the ABThera group (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.11–0.93; P = 0.04).

Conclusions:

This trial observed a survival difference between patients randomized to the ABThera versus Barker's vacuum pack that did not seem to be mediated by an improvement in peritoneal fluid drainage, fascial closure rates, or markers of systemic inflammation.

Trial Registration:

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01355094.

A protocol for a scoping and qualitative study to identify and evaluate indications for damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients

INTRODUCTION

Initial abbreviated surgery with planned reoperation (damage control surgery) is frequently used for major trauma patients to rapidly control haemorrhage while limiting surgical stress. Although damage control surgery may decrease mortality risk among the severely injured, it may also be associated with several complications when inappropriately applied. We seek to scope the literature on trauma damage control surgery, identify its proposed indications, map and clarify their definitions, and examine the content and evidence on which they are based. We also seek to generate a comprehensive list of unique indications to inform an appropriateness rating process.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search 11 electronic bibliographic databases, included article bibliographies and grey literature sources for citations involving civilian trauma patients that proposed one or more indications for damage control surgery or a damage control intervention. Indications will be classified into a predefined conceptual framework and categorised and described using qualitative content analysis. Constant comparative methodology will be used to create, modify and test codes describing principal findings or injuries (eg, bilobar liver injury) and associated decision variables (eg, coagulopathy) that comprise the reported indications. After a unique list of codes have been developed, we will use the organisational system recommended by the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (RAND-UCLA) Appropriateness Rating Method to group principal findings or injuries into chapters (subdivided by associated decision variables) according to broader clinical findings encountered during surgical practice (eg, major liver injury).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will constitute the first step in a multistep research programme aimed at developing appropriate, evidence-informed indications for damage control in civilian trauma patients. With use of an integrated knowledge translation intervention that includes collaboration with surgical practice leaders, this research may allow for development of indications that are more likely to be relevant to and used by surgeons. Ethics approval is not required for this study.

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.