N Poortmans1, F Berrevoet2. 1. Department of General and HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. 2. Department of General and HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. Frederik.Berrevoet@UGent.be.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The open abdomen (OA) is an important approach for managing intra-abdominal catastrophes and continues to be the standard of care. Despite this, challenges remain as it is associated with a high incidence of complications and poor outcomes. The objective is to perform a systematic review on dynamic closure techniques for fascial closure during open abdomen management. METHODS: An electronic database search was conducted involving 4 different databases (MEDLINE (PubMed), SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE (WOS) and EMBASE). All studies that described dynamic closure techniques in OA patients were eligible for inclusion. Data collected were synthesized by each outcome of interest. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the final synthesis. Overall methodological quality was low with a high number of retrospective observational studies and low number of patients. All included studies are observational cohort studies. No studies reported on the use of either Wittmann patch, dynamic retention sutures or ABRA system. Two studies reported on the ABRA system in combination with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT), while 9 reported on mesh-mediated fascial traction (MMFT) combined with NPWT. Other types of fascial traction, either by dynamic suture lines or by a self-made silastic tube system, and NPWT were reported in 2 studies. Overall closure rates are 93.2% for the ABRA system + NPWT versus 72.0% for the mesh-mediated fascial traction + NPWT. CONCLUSION: Careful selection and good management of OA patients will avoid prolonged treatment and facilitate early fascial closure. Future research should focus on comparison of different temporary dynamic closure techniques to evolve toward best treatment options, in terms of both fascial closure rates and long-term incisional hernia rates.
BACKGROUND: The open abdomen (OA) is an important approach for managing intra-abdominal catastrophes and continues to be the standard of care. Despite this, challenges remain as it is associated with a high incidence of complications and poor outcomes. The objective is to perform a systematic review on dynamic closure techniques for fascial closure during open abdomen management. METHODS: An electronic database search was conducted involving 4 different databases (MEDLINE (PubMed), SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE (WOS) and EMBASE). All studies that described dynamic closure techniques in OA patients were eligible for inclusion. Data collected were synthesized by each outcome of interest. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the final synthesis. Overall methodological quality was low with a high number of retrospective observational studies and low number of patients. All included studies are observational cohort studies. No studies reported on the use of either Wittmann patch, dynamic retention sutures or ABRA system. Two studies reported on the ABRA system in combination with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT), while 9 reported on mesh-mediated fascial traction (MMFT) combined with NPWT. Other types of fascial traction, either by dynamic suture lines or by a self-made silastic tube system, and NPWT were reported in 2 studies. Overall closure rates are 93.2% for the ABRA system + NPWT versus 72.0% for the mesh-mediated fascial traction + NPWT. CONCLUSION: Careful selection and good management of OA patients will avoid prolonged treatment and facilitate early fascial closure. Future research should focus on comparison of different temporary dynamic closure techniques to evolve toward best treatment options, in terms of both fascial closure rates and long-term incisional hernia rates.
Authors: R Villalobos Mori; Y Maestre González; Mª Mias Carballal; C Gas Ruiz; G Protti Ruiz; A Escartin Arias; J J Olsina Kissler Journal: Hernia Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: A Lambertz; Ch Mihatsch; A Röth; S Kalverkamp; R Eickhoff; U P Neumann; C D Klink; K Junge Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 6.071
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: Stefan Acosta; Arne Seternes; Maarit Venermo; Leena Vikatmaa; Karl Sörelius; Anders Wanhainen; Mats Svensson; Khatereh Djavani; Martin Björck Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2017-10-21 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Martin Björck; Andreas Bruhin; Michael Cheatham; Daniel Hinck; Mark Kaplan; Guiseppe Manca; Thomas Wild; Alastair Windsor Journal: World J Surg Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: A G Willms; R Schwab; M W von Websky; F Berrevoet; D Tartaglia; K Sörelius; R H Fortelny; M Björck; T Monchal; F Brennfleck; D Bulian; C Beltzer; C T Germer; J F Lock Journal: Hernia Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 2.920