Ventsislav M Mutafchiyski1, G I Popivanov2, K T Kjossev3, S Chipeva4. 1. Department of Military Surgery, Clinic of Endoscopic, Endocrine surgery and Coloproctology, Military Medical Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria. 2. Clinic of Endoscopic, Endocrine surgery and Coloproctology, Military Medical Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria. 3. Clinic of Abdominal Surgery, Military Medical Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria. 4. Department of Statistics and Econometrics, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, the open abdomen technique is the widely recognised method for treatment of life-threatening trauma, intra-abdominal sepsis, abdominal compartment syndrome and wound dehiscence. The techniques for temporary closure using negative pressure have gained increasing popularity. Although negative pressure wound therapy has been proved as an effective method in trauma, the results in diffuse peritonitis are contradictory. METHODS: Overall, 108 patients with diffuse peritonitis and open abdomen were prospectively enrolled from January 2006 to December 2013--69 treated with mesh-foil laparostomy without negative pressure and 49 with vacuum-assisted closure (VAC(®)) The primary endpoints were the rate of primary fascial closure and mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rate of complications--enteroatmospheric fistulas, intra-abdominal abscesses, wound infection and necrotising fasciitis, intensive care unit (ICU) and overall hospital stay. RESULTS: VAC was associated with higher overall (73% vs 53%) and late primary fascial closure rates (31% vs 7%), lower rates of necrotising fasciitis (2% vs 15%, p=0.012), intra-abdominal abscesses (10% vs 20%), enteroatmospheric fistulas (8% vs 19%), overall mortality (31% vs 53%, p<0.05), shorter ICU (6.1 vs 10.6 days, p=0.002) and hospital stay (15.1 vs 25.9 days, p=0.000). CONCLUSIONS: The results clearly suggest the obvious advantage of VAC in comparison to the temporary abdominal closure without negative pressure in the cases with severe diffuse peritonitis. However, to a large extent, our results might be attributed to the combination of VAC with dynamic fascial closure. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
BACKGROUND: Currently, the open abdomen technique is the widely recognised method for treatment of life-threatening trauma, intra-abdominal sepsis, abdominal compartment syndrome and wound dehiscence. The techniques for temporary closure using negative pressure have gained increasing popularity. Although negative pressure wound therapy has been proved as an effective method in trauma, the results in diffuse peritonitis are contradictory. METHODS: Overall, 108 patients with diffuse peritonitis and open abdomen were prospectively enrolled from January 2006 to December 2013--69 treated with mesh-foil laparostomy without negative pressure and 49 with vacuum-assisted closure (VAC(®)) The primary endpoints were the rate of primary fascial closure and mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rate of complications--enteroatmospheric fistulas, intra-abdominal abscesses, wound infection and necrotising fasciitis, intensive care unit (ICU) and overall hospital stay. RESULTS: VAC was associated with higher overall (73% vs 53%) and late primary fascial closure rates (31% vs 7%), lower rates of necrotising fasciitis (2% vs 15%, p=0.012), intra-abdominal abscesses (10% vs 20%), enteroatmospheric fistulas (8% vs 19%), overall mortality (31% vs 53%, p<0.05), shorter ICU (6.1 vs 10.6 days, p=0.002) and hospital stay (15.1 vs 25.9 days, p=0.000). CONCLUSIONS: The results clearly suggest the obvious advantage of VAC in comparison to the temporary abdominal closure without negative pressure in the cases with severe diffuse peritonitis. However, to a large extent, our results might be attributed to the combination of VAC with dynamic fascial closure. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: M López-Cano; J M García-Alamino; S A Antoniou; D Bennet; U A Dietz; F Ferreira; R H Fortelny; P Hernandez-Granados; M Miserez; A Montgomery; S Morales-Conde; F Muysoms; J A Pereira; R Schwab; N Slater; A Vanlander; G H Van Ramshorst; F Berrevoet Journal: Hernia Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Massimo Sartelli; Fikri M Abu-Zidan; Luca Ansaloni; Miklosh Bala; Marcelo A Beltrán; Walter L Biffl; Fausto Catena; Osvaldo Chiara; Federico Coccolini; Raul Coimbra; Zaza Demetrashvili; Demetrios Demetriades; Jose J Diaz; Salomone Di Saverio; Gustavo P Fraga; Wagih Ghnnam; Ewen A Griffiths; Sanjay Gupta; Andreas Hecker; Aleksandar Karamarkovic; Victor Y Kong; Reinhold Kafka-Ritsch; Yoram Kluger; Rifat Latifi; Ari Leppaniemi; Jae Gil Lee; Michael McFarlane; Sanjay Marwah; Frederick A Moore; Carlos A Ordonez; Gerson Alves Pereira; Haralds Plaudis; Vishal G Shelat; Jan Ulrych; Sanoop K Zachariah; Martin D Zielinski; Maria Paula Garcia; Ernest E Moore Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 5.469