Management of the open abdomen using combination therapy with ABRA and ABThera systems

Effectiveness and safety of an innovative silicone extender in suture reinforcement or dermatotraction: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

Multiple techniques are available for closing skin defects, such as skin grafts, flaps and tissue expansion. The tissue extender MID SEW (MID, France) was developed to achieve dermatotraction or suture reinforcement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of this innovative silicone extender for large surgical wounds.

METHOD

A single-centre retrospective and observational study on an unselected consecutive cohort of patients treated with a tissue extender was conducted. Indications, initial and final wound surfaces, and adverse events (AEs) were retrieved from electronic medical records. The main outcome measure was the time to complete wound closure.

RESULTS

We identified 50 patients from July 2017 to December 2018. Patients underwent cutaneous tumour-wide excision (n=44), or pilonidal disease surgical treatment (n=6). The average initial wound area was 53.3±42.4cm2. Healing was complete, without secondary dehiscence, within the first seven days after device withdrawal for 41 patients (82%). At least one AE was experienced by eight patients (16%) during the study period: five inflammation; five wound dehiscence; two skin necrosis; and one pain.

CONCLUSION

This case series suggests that the tissue extender may be effective and safe in its dermatotraction and suture reinforcement indications in the treatment of large wounds after wide excision of skin cancer or treatment of pilonidal disease.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

This work was supported in part by the Hospices Civils de Lyon, France and in part by the University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France. OB co-owns the patent on the MID SEW system. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in laparotomy wounds (PROPEL-2): protocol for a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

A proportion of patients undergoing midline laparotomy will develop surgical site infections after surgery. These complications place considerable financial burden on healthcare economies and have negative implications for patient health and quality of life. The prophylactic application of negative pressure wound therapy devices has been mooted as a pragmatic strategy to reduce surgical site infections. Nevertheless, further availability of multicentre randomized clinical trial data evaluating the prophylactic use of negative pressure wound therapy following midline laparotomy is warranted to definitely provide consensus in relation to these closure methods, while also deciphering potential differences among subgroups. The aim of this study is to determine whether prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy reduces postoperative wound complications in patients undergoing midline laparotomy.

METHODS

PROPEL-2 is a multicentre prospective randomized clinical trial designed to compare standard surgical dressings (control arm) with negative pressure wound therapy dressings (Prevena™ and PICO™ being the most commonly utilized). Patient recruitment will include adult patients aged 18 years or over, who are indicated to undergo emergency or elective laparotomy. To achieve 90% power at the 5% significance level, 1006 patients will be required in each arm, which when allowing for losses to follow-up, 10% will be added to each arm, leaving the total projected sample size to be 2013 patients, who will be recruited across a 36-month enrolment period.

CONCLUSION

The PROPEL-2 trial will be the largest independent multicentre randomized clinical trial designed to assess the role of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy in patients indicated to undergo midline laparotomy. The comparison of standard treatment to two commercially available negative pressure wound therapy devices will help provide consensus on the routine management of laparotomy wounds. Enrolment to PROPEL-2 began in June 2023. Registration number: NCT05977816 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Modified Application of the Abdominal Re-Approximation Anchor Device in the Closure of Septic Open Abdomen in a Patient With Class III Obesity

The Abdominal Re-Approximation Anchor (ABRA®) is a pivotal dynamic wound closure system utilized for achieving primary fascial closure in patients undergoing open abdomen surgeries. However, its efficacy can be hindered in patients with class III obesity due to anatomical complexities and compromised tissue characteristics. Here, we present the unique case of a 25-year-old woman with class III obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m2) who required primary abdominal closure following complications of an ileostomy repair. Traditional placement of the ABRA device was not feasible due to thick subcutaneous tissue layers. Consequently, a modified application of ABRA was decided based on clinical judgment, whereby the ABRA button anchors were strategically placed internally under the subcutaneous tissue instead of externally on the skin surface. The patient completed six intraoperative tightenings of the ABRA device via this novel technique and was treated with washouts over the course of two months until complete resolution was achieved. The presented case demonstrates a successful modification of the ABRA wound closure device to suit an open abdomen patient with class III obesity.

Negative pressure wound therapy for emergency laparotomy incisions: A national database propensity matched study

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSI) are a common complication of laparotomy incisions. The role of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) in preventing SSIs has not yet been explored in a nationwide analysis. We aimed to evaluate the association of the prophylactic use of NPWT with SSIs in patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Surgery Quality Initiative Program (NSQIP) database from 2013 to 2020. We included patients ≥18 years undergoing an emergency laparotomy. We performed a 1:1 propensity matching adjusting for patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, BMI, comorbid conditions, ASA status, diagnosis, preoperative factors and laboratory variables, procedure type, wound class, and intraoperative variables. We compared NPWT with standard dressings in two patient populations: 1. patients with completely closed (skin and fascia) laparotomy incisions and 2. patients with partially closed (fascia only) laparotomy incisions. Our primary outcome was the rate of incisional SSI. Secondary outcomes included the type of SSI, postoperative 30-day complications, postoperative hospital length of stay, and discharge disposition.

RESULTS

We included 65,803 patients with completely closed incisions of whom 387 patients received NPWT. There was no significant difference in the rate of total SSIs (13.4 ​% vs. 11.9 ​%; p ​= ​0.52) in the matched population of 387 pairs. We included 7285 patients with partially closed incisions of whom 477 patients received NPWT. There was no significant difference in the rate of total SSIs (3.6 ​% vs. 4.4 ​%; p ​= ​0.51) in the matched population of 477 pairs. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly in either group.

CONCLUSION

The rate of SSIs was not significantly different when prophylactic NPWT was used compared to standard dressings for patients with a closed or partially closed laparotomy incision.

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 ).

Crush injury with significant soft tissue loss managed utilising biological and dynamic tissue systems: a case study

Major traumatic crush injuries are difficult to manage, with high morbidity, requiring prolonged, complex treatment with many procedures. Free-flap reconstruction is often used yet full functionality still may not be regained. In this case study of a traumatic crush injury of the anterior distal tibia, ankle and foot of a 48-year-old male patient, we opted for an alternative management strategy using a combination of a dynamic tissue system (DTS) and biological xenografts (porcine urinary bladder matrix and a multi-tissue platform). The DTS was kept in place in an outpatient setting for four weeks postoperatively and removed after that time. At the 3-month follow-up, the wound was significantly smaller at about 15% of the original size. The wound healed completely before 6-month follow-up. Our patient's traumatic crush injury was successfully healed using an alternative management strategy, DTS and biologic xenografts.

Simple suture whipstitch closure is a reasonable option for many patients requiring temporary abdominal closure for blunt or penetrating trauma

Objectives

Multiple temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques are currently used to manage the open abdomen (OA) in severely injured trauma patients, with variability in efficacy and cost. We evaluated the clinical outcomes of two commonly used TAC methods: ABTHERA Negative Pressure Therapy System and whipstitch suture closure (WC).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who had blunt or penetrating trauma from 2015 to 2021 with OA managed using either ABTHERA, WC, or both. Primary outcomes included overall and intensive care unit length of stay, ventilator days, number of laparotomies, time to definitive fascial closure, and complications (bleeding, evisceration, wound dehiscence, and reoperation). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare baseline characteristics, outcomes, and complications. Potential mediators of the relationship between the type of TAC and outcomes were explored using mediation analyses.

Results

A total of 112 TAC were analyzed; 86 patients had a single type of TAC placement (either WC or ABTHERA), whereas 26 had both types. A majority of patients had blunt trauma in both WC (77%) and ABTHERA (76%) cohorts. There were no differences in baseline characteristics, including injury severity (27.5±12.4 and 27.5±12.0 for ABTHERA and WC, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference among individual complications and overall complications (OR=0.622 (0.274 to 1.412)). No differences were found between the outcomes, and any apparent differences seen were mediated by factors such as a higher number of laparotomies.

Conclusion

WC is a low-cost option for TAC in trauma, with similar clinical outcomes and complications to ABTHERA.

Level of evidence

Level III therapeutic/care management study.

Management of the open abdomen: A systematic review with meta-analysis and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

BACKGROUND

Multiple techniques describe the management of the open abdomen (OA) and restoration of abdominal wall integrity after damage-control laparotomy (DCL). It is unclear which operative technique provides the best method of achieving primary myofascial closure at the index hospitalization.

METHODS

A writing group from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature regarding OA management strategies in the adult population after DCL. The group sought to understand if fascial traction techniques or techniques to reduce visceral edema improved the outcomes in these patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was utilized, meta-analyses were performed, and an evidence profile was generated.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, the use of fascial traction techniques was associated with improved primary myofascial closure during the index admission (relative risk, 0.32) and fewer hernias (relative risk, 0.11.) The use of fascial traction techniques did not increase the risk of enterocutaneous fistula formation nor mortality. Techniques to reduce visceral edema may improve the rate of closure; however, these studies were very limited and suffered significant heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

We conditionally recommend the use of a fascial traction system over routine care when treating a patient with an OA after DCL. This recommendation is based on the benefit of improved primary myofascial closure without worsening mortality or enterocutaneous fistula formation. We are unable to make any recommendations regarding techniques to reduce visceral edema.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Level IV.

Vertical traction device prevents abdominal wall retraction and facilitates early primary fascial closure of septic and non-septic open abdomen

Purpose

One of the major challenges in the management of patients with septic and non-septic open abdomen (OA) is to control abdominal wall retraction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a novel vertical traction device (VTD) on primary fascial closure (PFC) and prevention of fascial retraction.

Methods

Twenty patients treated with OA were included in this retrospective multicenter study. All patients were initially stabilized with laparostomy and the abdomen temporarily sealed either with a Bogotá bag or a negative pressure wound therapy system (NPWT).

Results

The mean duration of OA and fascia-to-fascia distance (FTF) prior to the VTD application were 3 days and 15 cm, respectively. At relook laparotomy 48 h after VTD implementation, the mean FTF distance significantly decreased to 10 cm (p = 0.0081). In all cases, PFC was achieved after a mean period of 7 days. Twelve patients received the VTD in combination with a NPWT, whereas in eight patients, the device was combined with an alternative temporary abdominal closure system (TAC). Although not statistically significant, the FTF distance remarkably decreased in both groups at relook laparotomy 48 h following the device implementation. The mean periods of PFC for patients with septic and non-septic OA were comparable (7.5 vs. 7 days). During follow-up, two patients developed an incisional hernia.

Conclusion

Vertical traction device prevents fascial retraction and facilitates early PFC in OA. In combination with NPWT, rapid fascial closure of large abdominal defects can be achieved.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Level of evidence

I, randomized controlled trial.

Management of Open Abdomen After Trauma Laparotomy: A Comparative Analysis of Dynamic Fascial Traction and Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Systems

BACKGROUND

Management of the post-traumatic open abdomen (OA) using negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) alone is associated with low rates of primary fascial closure. The abdominal reapproximation anchor (ABRA) system exerts dynamic medial fascial traction and may work synergistically with NPWT to facilitate primary fascial closure.

METHODS

Patients with an OA following trauma laparotomy between 2009 and 2018 were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database. Patients treated with ABRA in conjunction with NPWT (ABRA) versus NPWT alone (NPWT) were compared in terms of primary fascial closure rate, number of surgeries to closure, tracheostomy duration, length of stay and incidence of entero-atmospheric fistula. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify predictors of tracheostomy duration.

RESULTS

We identified 48 patients [ABRA, 12 and NPWT, 36]. The ABRA group was significantly younger (25 vs. 37 years, p = 0.027) and included a lower proportion of males (58% vs. 89%, p = 0.032). Groups were similar with respect to the incidence of hollow viscus injury, injury severity score and abdominal abbreviated injury score. Compared to the NPWT group, the ABRA group had a significantly higher rate of primary fascial closure (100% vs. 28%, p < 0.001), fewer surgeries to abdominal closure (2 vs. 2.5, p = 0.023) and shorter duration of tracheostomy (15.5 vs. 36 days, p = 0.008). There were no differences in length of stay or incidence of entero-atmospheric fistula. On multivariable linear regression, ABRA placement was an independent predictor of shorter tracheostomy duration, after adjusting for covariates (β = - 0.294, p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

For the post-traumatic OA, ABRA coupled with NPWT achieves a higher rate of primary fascial closure compared to NPWT alone, while requiring fewer surgeries and a shorter duration of tracheostomy.

Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy for closed laparotomy wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Surgical site infections are a common source of post-operative morbidity and contribute significantly to healthcare costs. Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and/or bowel surgery are particularly at risk. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been shown to reduce wound infection. However, to date, there has been a lack of consensus around its use for closed laparotomy wounds. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing the use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy with standard dressings for closed laparotomy incisions. The primary outcome was incidence of incisional surgical site infection (SSI) at 30 days post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included superficial and deep SSI, skin dehiscence, fascial dehiscence and length of stay. A total of 2182 publications were identified, of which, following review of titles, abstracts and full texts, five studies met the criteria for inclusion. Across these studies, 467 patients were randomised to NPWT and 464 to standard dressings. Overall SSI rate was 18.6% (n = 87/467) versus 23.9% (n = 111/464) in the NPWT and standard dressing groups, respectively (Odds ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.52–0.99, p = 0.04*). Deep SSI incidence was the same in both groups (2.6%). Both skin dehiscence and fascial dehiscence were slightly higher in the standard dressing group ((4.2%, n = 11/263 versus 3.1% (n = 8/261) and (0.9% (n = 3/324) versus 0.6% (n = 2/323)), respectively. This study observed that NPWT reduces the overall SSI for closed laparotomy wounds. It supports data recommending the use of prophylactic NPWT dressings, especially in high-risk patients in both emergency and elective circumstances.

Use of an abdominal reapproximation anchor system in the closure of large, open myelomeningoceles

Open neural tube defects are complex congenital abnormalities of the nervous system in which nervous tissue is exposed on the patient's back at the time of delivery. These malformations require surgical correction, and although replacement of the neural placode internally is fairly standard, providing skin closure can be very challenging especially in large defects. An abdominal reapproximation anchor (ABRA) device may be of value in attaining skin closure in these large, open myelomeningocele defects in which primary closure cannot be accomplished surgically. In a study period during which 65 patients underwent surgical closure of open myelomeningocele defects, 5 of them underwent ABRA-assisted closure.The average surgical intervention for myelomeningocele repair occurred on day 2.2 of life (range 2-3 days). The average defect size was 37 cm2 (range 16-56 cm2), and the average time to formal closure was 30.8 days (range 8-63 days). One of the patients had natural closure with just ABRA approximation. The remaining 4 patients underwent formal delayed primary closure when the skin edges became approximated. Use of the ABRA system in the closure of a large, open myelomeningocele may be valuable in select patients but requires further follow-up and comparison to identify truly significant differences with traditional techniques.

Therapeutic advances in wound healing

Wound healing is a complex physiological process that occurs in the human body involving the sequential activation of multiple cell types and signaling pathways in a coordinated manner. Chronic wounds and burns clearly decrease quality of life of the patients since they are associated with an increase in physical pain and socio-economical complications. Furthermore, incidence and prevalence of chronic wounds (unlike burns) have been increasing mainly due to population aging resulting in increased costs for national health systems. Thus, the development of new and more cost-effective technologies/therapies is not only of huge interest but also necessary to improve the long-term sustainability of national health systems. This review covers the current knowledge on recent technologies/therapies for skin regeneration, such as: wound dressings; skin substitutes; exogenous growth factor based therapy and systemic therapy; external tissue expanders; negative pressure; oxygen; shock wave, and photobiomodulation wound therapies. Associated benefits and risks as well as the clinical use and availability are all addressed for each therapy. Moreover, future trends in wound care including novel formulations using metallic nanoparticles and topical insulin are herein presented. These novel formulations have shown to be promising therapeutic options in the near future that may change the wound care paradigm.

Prophylactic negative wound therapy in laparotomy wounds (PROPEL trial): randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Superficial surgical site infections are a common post-operative complication. They also place a considerable financial burden on healthcare. The use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy has been advocated to reduce wound infection rates. However, there is debate around its routine use. The purpose of this trial is to determine if prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy reduces post-operative wound complications in patients undergoing laparotomy.

METHODS/DESIGN

This multi-centre randomised controlled trial will compare standard surgical dressings (control) to two competing negative pressure wound therapy dressings (Prevena™ and PICO™). All patients will be over 18 years, who are undergoing an emergency or elective laparotomy. It is intended to enrol a total of 271 patients for the trial.

DISCUSSION

The PROPEL trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing laparotomy. The comparison of standard treatment to two commercially available NPWT will help provide consensus on the routine management of laparotomy wounds.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT number NCT03871023).

EWMA Document: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy

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

Does Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy for the Open Abdomen Benefit the Patient? A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is the most modern and sophisticated method of temporary abdominal closure. The aim of the study was to determine the significant predictors for mortality in patients with NPWT.

SETTING

University Clinical Centre Maribor, Slovenia MATERIALS AND METHODS:: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients treated with NPWT between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2014.

RESULTS

In the univariate analysis, the type of wound closure, more than 7 NPWT changes, the total days with NPWT, and time to wound closure were significantly associated with death of the patient. In the multivariate analysis, only the number of more than 7 NPWT changes was found as a significant predictor for death (P = .038).

CONCLUSIONS

Negative-pressure wound therapy is a method of choice for the treatment of open abdomen if there is a clear indication. However, clinicians should try all measures to remove the NPWT system and close the abdomen as soon as possible because prolonged use is associated with significantly higher mortality.

"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.

Prevention of Incisional Hernias after Open Abdomen Treatment

Management of a patient with an open abdomen is difficult, and the primary closure of the fascial edges is essential to obtain the best patient outcome, regardless of the initial etiology of the open abdomen. The use of temporary abdominal closure devices is nowadays the gold standard to have the highest closure rates with mesh-mediated fascial traction as the proposed standard of care. However, the incidence of incisional hernias, although much more controlled than when leaving an abdomen open, is high and reaches up to 65%. As shown for other high-risk patient subgroups, such as obese patients, patients with an abdominal aneurysm, and patients with former -ostomy sites, the prevention of incisional hernias might be key to further optimize patient outcomes after open abdomen treatment. In this overview, current available modalities to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia are discussed. Most of these preventive options have been shown effective in giant ventral hernia repair and might work effectively in this patient cohort with open abdomen as well.

Elastic TPU Mesh as Abdominal Wall Inlay Significantly Reduces Defect Size in a Minipig Model

Background: The open abdomen with mesh implantation, followed by early reoperation with fascial closure, is a modern surgical approach in difficult clinical situations such as severe abdominal sepsis. As early fascial closure is not possible in many cases, mesh-mediated fascial traction is helpful for conditioning of a minimized ventral hernia after open abdomen. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical utilization of an innovative elastic thermoplastic polyurethane mesh (TPU) as an abdominal wall inlay in a minipig model. Methods: Ten minipigs were divided in two groups, either receiving an elastic TPU mesh or a nonelastic polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) mesh in inlay position of the abdominal wall. After 8 weeks, mesh expansion and abdominal wall defect size were measured. Finally, pigs were euthanized and abdominal walls were explanted for histological and immunohistochemical assessment. Results: Eight weeks after abdominal wall replacement, transversal diameter of the fascial defect in the TPU group was significantly smaller than in the PVDF group (4.5 cm vs. 7.4 cm; p = 0.047). Immunhistochemical analysis showed increased Ki67 positive cells (p = 0.003) and a higher number of apoptotic cells (p = 0.047) after abdominal wall replacement with a TPU mesh. Collagen type I/III ratio was increased in the PVDF group (p = 0.011). Conclusion: Implantation of an elastic TPU mesh as abdominal wall inlay is a promising approach to reduce the size of the ventral hernia after open abdomen by mesh-mediated traction. However, this effect was associated with a slightly increased foreign body reaction in comparison to the nonelastic PVDF.

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.

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

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

Negative-pressure wound therapy for prevention and treatment of surgical-site infections after vascular surgery

BACKGROUND

Indications for negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in vascular surgical patients are expanding. The aim of this review was to outline the evidence for NPWT on open and closed wounds.

METHODS

A PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library search from 2007 to June 2016 was performed combining the medical subject headings terms 'wound infection', 'abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)', 'fasciotomy', 'vascular surgery' and 'NPWT' or 'VAC'.

RESULTS

NPWT of open infected groin wounds was associated with shorter duration of wound healing by 47 days, and was more cost-effective than alginate dressings in one RCT. In one RCT and six observational studies, NPWT-related major bleeding and graft preservation rates were 0-10 and 83-100 per cent respectively. One retrospective comparative study showed greater wound size reduction per day, fewer dressing changes, quicker wound closure and shorter hospital stay with NPWT compared with gauze dressings for lower leg fasciotomy. NPWT and mesh-mediated fascial traction after AAA repair and open abdomen was associated with high primary fascial closure rates (96-100 per cent) and low risk of graft infection (0-7 per cent). One retrospective comparative study showed a significant reduction in surgical-site infection, from 30 per cent with standard wound care to 6 per cent with closed incisional NPWT.

CONCLUSION

NPWT has a central role in open and infected wounds after vascular surgery; the results of prophylactic care of closed incisions are promising.

The Abdominal Reapproximation Anchor Device

INTRODUCTION

Achieving primary fascial closure after damage control laparostomy can be challenging. A number of devices are in use, with none having yet emerged as best practice. In July 2013, at Westmead Hospital, we started using the abdominal reapproximation anchor (ABRA; Canica Design, Almonte, Ontario, Canada) device. We report on our experience.

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical records for patients who had open abdomens managed with the ABRA device between July to December 2013 was done. Data extracted included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), reason for the open abdomen, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, number of laparostomies prior to ABRA placement, duration of placement, device complications, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Four cases of open abdomens managed using the ABRA device were identified, with 3 a consequence of intra-abdominal sepsis and 1 a consequence of penetrating trauma. Mean BMI was 33.5 kg/m², APACHE II score was 14.5, duration with open abdomen prior to ABRA placement was 11.75 days, duration with ABRA in situ was 9 days, duration of hospital stay was 64.25 days, and ICU stay was 37.75 days. Three patients (75%) achieved fascial closure, and 1 achieved skin closure. No incidences of enterocutaneous fistulae occurred.

CONCLUSION

The ABRA is a unique emerging alternative to aid in achieving fascial closure in patients managed with open abdomens. Our case series demonstrates that it can be used effectively in selected patients. Studies are needed to compare its efficacy with more traditional methods.

Temporary Abdominal Closure After Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review of Contemporary Observational Studies

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper was to review the literature on temporary abdominal closure (TAC) after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.

METHODS

This was a systematic review of observational studies. A PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane search from 2007 to July 2015 was performed combining the Medical Subject Headings "aortic aneurysm" and "temporary abdominal closure", "delayed abdominal closure", "open abdomen", "abdominal compartment syndrome", "negative pressure wound therapy", or "vacuum assisted wound closure".

RESULTS

Seven original studies were found. The methods used for TAC were the vacuum pack system with (n = 1) or without (n = 2) mesh bridge, vacuum assisted wound closure (VAWC; n = 1) and the VAWC with mesh mediated fascial traction (VACM; n = 3). The number of patients included varied from four to 30. Three studies were exclusively after open repair, one after endovascular aneurysm repair, and three were mixed series. The frequency of ruptured AAA varied from 60% to 100%. The primary fascial closure rate varied from 79% to 100%. The median time to closure of the open abdomen was 10.5 and 17 days in two prospective studies with a fascial closure rate of 100% and 96%, respectively; the inclusion criterion was an anticipated open abdomen therapy time ≥5 days using the VACM method. The graft infection rate was 0% in three studies. No patient with long-term open abdomen therapy with the VACM in the three studies was left with a planned ventral hernia. The in hospital survival rate varied from 46% to 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

A high fascial closure rate without planned ventral hernia is possible to achieve with VACM, even after long-term open abdomen therapy. There are, however, few publications reporting specific results of open abdomen treatment after AAA repair, and there is a need for randomized controlled trials to determine the most efficient and safe TAC method during open abdomen treatment after AAA repair.