Role of the Open Abdomen in Critically Ill Patients

Outcomes of abdominal wall closure with fascial bridging using a polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) Mesh following non-trauma laparotomy: a multi-center study

INTRODUCTION

Complete primary fascial closure following midline laparotomy is occasionally unachievable, necessitating abdominal wall closure via fascial bridging with polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) mesh. Despite its frequent use, literature on the outcomes of Vicryl mesh for fascial bridging remains sparse and controversial, with some studies indicating potential associations with enterocutaneous fistulas and bowel obstruction. This study evaluates the outcomes of fascial bridging utilizing Vicryl mesh for non-trauma laparotomies.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of adult patients who underwent abdominal wall closure using Vicryl mesh at Cleveland Clinic centers from January 2018 to April 2023. Data were extracted from the Epic System, focusing on outcomes including fistula formation, the need for interventions for small bowel obstruction, and overall wound and postoperative morbidity, with a minimum follow-up of six months.

RESULTS

Among the 124,536 patients who underwent non-trauma laparotomies, 202 (0.17%) met the inclusion criteria, with a median follow-up of 47 months (SD ± 18.9 months). Postoperative outcomes following abdominal wall closure with Vicryl mesh included a 48.5% rate of surgical site infections, a 27.2% incidence of skin dehiscence, a 9.9% occurrence of soft tissue necrosis, and 2% experienced bowel evisceration secondary to mesh detachment. Enterocutaneous fistulas developed in 8.4% of patients, with no interventions for small bowel obstruction required within the first six months postoperatively. These complication rates are comparable to other abdominal closure techniques in similarly complex cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Fascial bridging with Vicryl mesh is a safe method for abdominal wall closure, with enterocutaneous fistula and small bowel obstruction rates comparable to those seen with other techniques. Nevertheless, primary closure of the linea alba should be prioritized, with mesh implantation minimized whenever feasible.

Increased use of damage control laparotomy for emergency small bowel or colon surgery: does it affect patient outcomes?

PURPOSE

Evidence to guide the application of damage control laparotomy (DCL) in emergency surgery patients is limited. We assessed whether DCL use for emergent small bowel or colon surgery increased over time and its impact on outcomes. We hypothesized that DCL would be utilized more often in patients with significant comorbidities or septic shock with improved outcomes.

METHODS

National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data on DCL patients from 2014 to 2020 were used. Endpoints were incidence of DCL, in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), complications, and 30-day readmission over time. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

DCL incidence increased over time (OR = 1.07 [1.05-1.08], p < 0.001). Presence of pre-operative septic shock increased over the years (OR = 1.04 [1.01-1.07], p = 0.007). Mortality, readmission, and post-operative septic complications did not change over the study period. Average LOS significantly decreased over time (OR = 0.93 [0.92-0.95], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The odds of a surgeon using DCL increased by 7% each year. Although pre-operative septic shock incidence increased, LOS decreased over time while mortality remained unchanged.

The Open Abdomen After Intra-Abdominal Contamination in Emergency General Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Delayed fascial closure (DFC) is an increasingly utilized technique in emergency general surgery (EGS), despite a lack of data regarding its benefits. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of DFC versus immediate fascial closure (IFC) in EGS patients with intra-abdominal contamination.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted using the 2013-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Adult EGS patients who underwent an exploratory laparotomy with intra-abdominal contamination [wound classification III (contaminated) or IV (dirty)] were included. Patients with agreed upon indications for DFC were excluded. A propensity-matched analysis was performed. The primary outcome was 30-d mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 36,974 eligible patients. 16.8% underwent DFC, of which 51.7% were female, and the median age was 64 y. After matching, there were 6213 pairs. DFC was associated with a higher risk of mortality (15.8% versus 14.2%, P = 0.016), pneumonia (11.7% versus 10.1%, P = 0.007), pulmonary embolism (1.9% versus 1.6%, P = 0.03), and longer hospital stay (11 versus 10 d, P < 0.001). No significant differences in postoperative sepsis and deep surgical site infection rates between the two groups were observed. Subgroup analyses by preoperative diagnosis (diverticulitis, perforation, and undifferentiated sepsis) showed that DFC was associated with longer hospital stay in all subgroups, with a higher mortality rate in patients with diverticulitis (8.1% versus 6.1%, P = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

In the presence of intra-abdominal contamination, DFC is associated with longer hospital stay and higher rates of mortality and morbidity. DFC was not associated with decreased risk of infectious complications. Further studies are needed to clearly define the indications of DFC.

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

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

Revisiting abdominal closure in mesenteric ischemia: is there an association with outcome?

PURPOSE

Current guidelines advocate liberal use of delayed abdominal closure in patients with acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) undergoing laparotomy. Few studies have systematically examined this practice. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of delayed abdominal closure on postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients with AMI.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of the ACS-NSQIP 2013-2017 registry. We included patients with a diagnosis of AMI undergoing emergency laparotomy. Patients were divided into two groups based on the type of abdominal closure: (1) delayed fascial closure (DFC) when no layers of the abdominal wall were closed and (2) immediate fascial closure (IFC) if deep layers or all layers of the abdominal wall were closed. Propensity score matching was performed based on comorbidities, pre-operative, and operative characteristics. Univariable analysis was performed on the matched sample.

RESULTS

The propensity-matched cohort consisted of 1520 patients equally divided into the DFC and IFC groups. The median (IQR) age was 68 (59-77), and 836 (55.0%) were female. Compared to IFC, the DFC group showed increased in-hospital mortality (38.9% vs. 31.6%, p = 0.002), 30-day mortality (42.4% vs. 36.3%, p = 0.012), and increased risk of respiratory failure (59.5% vs. 31.2%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The delayed fascial closure technique was associated with increased mortality compared to immediate fascial closure. These findings do not support the blanket incorporation of delayed closure in mesenteric ischemia care or its previously advocated liberal use.

Open Abdomen in Elderly Patients With Surgical Sepsis: Predictors of Mortality

INTRODUCTION

Elderly patients are frequently presenting with emergency surgical conditions. The open abdomen technique is widely used in abdominal emergencies needing rapid control of intrabdominal contamination. However, specific predictors of mortality identifying candidates for comfort care are understudied.

METHODS

The 2013-2017 the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for emergent laparotomies performed in geriatric patients with sepsis or septic shock in whom fascial closure was delayed. Patients with acute mesenteric ischemia were excluded. The primary outcome was 30-d mortality. Univariable analysis, followed by multivariable logistic regression, was performed. Mortality was computed for combinations of the five predictors with the highest odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

A total of 1399 patients were identified. The median age was 73 (69-79) y, and 54.7% were female. 30-d mortality was 50.6%. In the multivariable analysis, the most important predictors were as follows: American Society of Anesthesiologists status 5 (OR = 4.80, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85-12.49 P = 0.002), dialysis dependence (OR = 2.65, 95% CI 1.54-4.57, P < 0.001), congestive hearth failure (OR = 2.53, 95% CI 1.52-4.21, P < 0.001), disseminated cancer (OR = 2.61, 95% CI 1.55-4.38, P < 0.001), and preoperative platelet count of <100,000 cells/μL (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.15-3.04, P = 0.011). The presence of two or more of these factors resulted in over 80% mortality. The absence of all these risk factors results in a survival rate of 62.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients, surgical sepsis or septic shock requiring an open abdomen for surgical management is highly lethal. The presence of several combinations of preoperative comorbidities is associated with a poor prognosis and can identify patients who can benefit from timely initiation of palliative care.

Delayed fascial closure in nontrauma abdominal emergencies: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Initially used in trauma management, delayed abdominal closure endeavors to decrease operative time during the index operation while still being lifesaving. Its use in emergency general surgery is increasing, but the data evaluating its outcome are sparse. We aimed to study the association between delayed abdominal closure, mortality, morbidity, and length of stay in an emergency surgery cohort.

METHODS

The 2013 to 2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was examined for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The patients were classified by the timing of abdominal wall closure: delayed fascial closure versus immediate fascial closure. Propensity score matching was performed based on preoperative covariates, wound classification, and performance of bowel resection. The outcomes were then compared by univariable analysis.

RESULTS

After matching, both the delayed fascial closure and immediate fascial closure groups consisted of 3,354 patients each. Median age was 65 years, and 52.6% were female. The delayed fascial closure group had a higher in-hospital mortality (35.3% vs 25.0%, P < .001), a higher 30-day mortality (38.6% vs 29.0%, P < .001), a higher proportion of acute kidney injury (9.5% vs 6.6%, P < .001), a lower proportion of postoperative sepsis (11.8% vs 15.6%, P < .001), and a lower proportion of surgical site infection (3.4% vs 7.0%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with immediate fascial closure, delayed fascial closure is associated with an increased mortality in the patients matched based on comorbidities and surgical site contamination. In emergency general surgery, delaying abdominal closure may not have the presumed overarching benefits, and its indications must be further defined in this population.

Risk factors for abdominal compartment syndrome in trauma – A review

" Background and Aim: Abdominal compartment syndrome is a life-threatening complication that can occur in trauma patients and greatly increase their mortality. Although there is a better scientific understanding of the general phenomena involved in the pathogenesis of this complication, the particular risk factors and their implications in the trauma patient population are yet to be deciphered. Methods: The authors conducted research through 3 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) using the following search formula: “(ACS OR abdominal compartment syndrome) AND (*trauma*) AND (risk factor)”. Subsequently, additional search formulas were used, including the risk factors taken into consideration (i.e. “shock”, “hypotension”, “acidosis”, “base deficit”, ”coagulopathy”, “retroperitoneal hematoma”, “HOB elevation”, “fluid resuscitation”, “damage control laparotomy”). Results: Throughout the 41 articles analyzed in this paper, 7 risk factors transcended and were further discussed: head of bed elevation/patient positioning, fluid resuscitation, the “lethal triad” of acidosis hypothermia and coagulopathy, Damage Control Laparotomy, shock/hypotension, retroperitoneal hematoma and demographics (age, gender, and race). Conclusions: To summarize, many potential risk factors were evaluated for the envisagement of the present paper, but the ones that prevailed the most were excessive fluid resuscitation, shock/hypotension, retroperitoneal hematomas, and the lethal triad. Consistent with other studies, no connection was found between age, gender, or race and the development of ACS. Further studies should focus more on the likely involvement of damage control laparotomy and patient positioning, as well as hypocalcemia, in the unfolding of ACS in trauma patients"

Open abdomen: is a dedicated emergency surgery team needed? A single center retrospective study on 141 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Open Abdomen (OA) is widely used when facing a catastrophic abdomen. Still, no indication is validated by a strong and high quality of evidence. The study reports the 5 year experience of a dedicated emergency general surgery (EGS) team.

METHODS

Retrospective observational cohort study. Patients undergoing OA management from 2/01/2015 to 19/07/2020 for trauma, non-traumatic emergencies or rescue surgery.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-one patients. Age 66.9 ± 15.1. Male 58.2%.9.3% OA for trauma, 64.5% for non-traumatic emergencies and 26.2% for rescue surgery. 40.4% performed by the EGS team 52.4% indication for surgery was a severe intra-abdominal infection. TAC device: commercial negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (83%), Sandwich VAC (12%), commercial NPWT with polypropylene mesh (5%) for pregressive fascial traction. Enteroatmospheric fistula (EAF) in 3 patients. OA duration 5.3 days (1-25). A 1.8 revision surgeries (0-12) required for definitive closure; ICU stay 9.9 days (0-78). 30-day mortality 23.5%. Overall and 1-year mortality were 47.5% and 43.3%. Overall survival 9.9 months. An increased one-year mortality rate was found in the >65 group (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We reported a wide use of OA in septic abdomen (90% of cases). We had a low rate of EAF, short ICU stay and OA duration. These results are related to the fact that patients were treated by a dedicated EGS team, suggesting that OA management should be cared for as much as possible by trained and experienced surgeons. Prospective studies with more accurate patient selection are needed to prove our conclusions.

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.

2019 WSES guidelines for the management of severe acute pancreatitis

Although most patients with acute pancreatitis have the mild form of the disease, about 20-30% develops a severe form, often associated with single or multiple organ dysfunction requiring intensive care. Identifying the severe form early is one of the major challenges in managing severe acute pancreatitis. Infection of the pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis occurs in about 20-40% of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and is associated with worsening organ dysfunctions. While most patients with sterile necrosis can be managed nonoperatively, patients with infected necrosis usually require an intervention that can be percutaneous, endoscopic, or open surgical. These guidelines present evidence-based international consensus statements on the management of severe acute pancreatitis from collaboration of a panel of experts meeting during the World Congress of Emergency Surgery in June 27-30, 2018 in Bertinoro, Italy. The main topics of these guidelines fall under the following topics: Diagnosis, Antibiotic treatment, Management in the Intensive Care Unit, Surgical and operative management, and Open abdomen.

Effect of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents on Sedation Requirements in Trauma Patients with an Open Abdomen

The appropriate level of sedation in patients with an open abdomen following damage control laparotomy (DCL) is debated. Chemical paralysis with neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) has been used to decrease time to abdominal closure. We sought to evaluate the effect of NMBA use on sedation requirements in patients with an open abdomen and to determine the effect of sedation on patient outcomes. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at an American College of Surgeons' verified level 1 trauma center. Adult trauma patients who underwent DCL between 2009 and 2015 were included. Patients with an intensive care unit length of stay of less than 48 hours and those who died before abdominal closure were excluded. The NMBA+ group received continuous NMBA within 24 hours of DCL; the NMBA- group did not. The primary outcome was cumulative sedation dose during the 7 days following DCL. Secondary outcomes included Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score, mechanical ventilation-free days, and delirium-coma-free days. Delirium-coma-free days were analyzed with linear regression. A total of 222 patients were included (NMBA+ 125; NMBA- 97). Demographics were similar between groups including age, Injury Severity Score, and mechanism of injury. The median time to closure in the overall cohort was 2 days (interquartile range [IQR] 1-2 days). Propofol and fentanyl were the primary sedatives used. The NMBA+ group received higher cumulative doses of propofol (NMBA+ 5405 mg, IQR 3103-10,573 mg; NMBA- 3601 mg, IQR 1605-6887 mg; p=0.007), but not of fentanyl. Time to abdominal closure, but not NMBA use, was associated with a higher cumulative propofol dose on multivariate analysis. The NMBA+ group had significantly lower RASS scores on the first 3 days following DCL. Mechanical ventilation-free days (NMBA+ 20 days vs NMBA- 18 days, p=0.960) and delirium-coma-free days (NMBA+ 18 days vs NMBA- 18 days, p=0.610) were similar between the groups. On linear regression, cumulative propofol dose was associated with fewer delirium-coma-free days (β-coefficient -0.007, 95% confidence interval -0.015 to -0.003). In trauma patients managed with DCL, higher cumulative sedative doses were administered in patients who received adjunctive NMBA, although NMBA therapy was not associated with a higher cumulative propofol dose on multivariate analysis. Consideration must be given to the potential effect of sedation on delirium and awakening following DCL.

Open Abdomen in Trauma and Critical Care

The open abdomen technique and temporary abdominal closure after damage control surgery is fast becoming the standard of care for managing intra-abdominal bleeding and infectious or ischemic processes in critically ill patients. Expansion of this technique has evolved from damage control surgery in severely injured trauma patients to use in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome due to acute pancreatitis and other disorders. Subsequent therapies after use of the open abdomen technique and temporary abdominal closure are resuscitation in the intensive care unit and planned reoperation to manage the underlying cause of bleeding, infection, or ischemia. Determining the need for this potentially lifesaving intervention and managing the wound after the open abdomen has been created are all within the realm of critical care nurses. Case studies illustrate the implementation of the open abdomen technique and patient management strategies.

"Second-look" laparotomy: warranted, or contributor to excessive open abdomens?

INTRODUCTION

The overuse of temporary abdominal closure and second look (SL) laparotomy in emergency general surgery (EGS) cases has been questioned in the recent literature. In an effort to hopefully decrease the number of open abdomen (OA) patients, we hypothesize that reviewing our cases, many of these SL patients could be managed with single-stage operative therapy and thus decrease the number of OA patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from Jun 2013-Jun 2014, evaluating EGS patients managed with an OA who required bowel resection in either index or SL laparotomy. Demographics, clinical variables, complications and mortality were collected. Fisher's exact t test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

During this time frame, 96 patients were managed with OA and 59 patients required a bowel resection. 55 (57%) of those required one bowel resection at the index operation with 4 (4.2%) only requiring one bowel resection at the second operation. In the patients requiring bowel resections, 18 (30%) required a resection at SL. At SL laparotomy, resection was required for questionably viable bowel at the index operation 60% (11), whereas 39% (7) had normal appearing bowel. Indications for resection at SL laparotomy included evolution of existing ischemia, new onset ischemia, staple line revision, and "other". 23 patients (39%) were hemodynamically unstable, contributing to the need for temporary abdominal closure. In the multivariate analysis, preoperative shock was the only predictor of need for further resection. Complications and mortality were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Almost one-fifth of the patients undergoing SL laparotomy for open abdomen required bowel resections, with 6.8% of those having normal appearing bowel at index operation, therefore in select EGS patients, SL laparotomy is a reasonable strategy.

Effectiveness and safety of continuous neuromuscular blockade in trauma patients with an open abdomen: A follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) have been associated with decreased time to fascial closure following damage control laparotomy (DCL). Changes in resuscitation over the last decade bring this practice into question.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent DCL between 2009 and 2015 was conducted at an ACS-verified level 1 trauma center. The study group (NMBA+) received continuous NMBA within 24 h of DCL. Data collected included demographics, resuscitative fluids, mortality, and complications. The primary outcome was time to fascial closure. Factors associated with abdominal closure were determined by ordinal logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 222 patients included (NMBA+ 125; NMBA- 97). Demographics were similar, including median age (NMBA+ 36; NMBA- 39 years) and ISS (NMBA+ 29; NMBA- 34). There was no difference in median time to closure (NMBA+ 2; NMBA- 2 days) or the incidence of complications (NMBA+ 64%; NMBA- 59%). In a regression model, NMBA exposure was not associated with time to abdominal closure.

CONCLUSIONS

In adult trauma patients requiring DCL, continuous NMBA did not affect the time to abdominal closure.

"Do not do" recommendations of the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Therapy. "Commitment to Quality by Scientific Societies" Project

In April 2013 the Ministry of Health (MSSSI) adopted the project called "Commitment to Quality by Scientific Societies in Spain", in response to social and professional demands for sustainability of the health system. The initiative is part of the activities of the Spanish Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and Services of the National Health System, and is coordinated jointly by the Quality and Cohesion Department, the Aragon Institute of Health Sciences (IACS), and the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI). All the scientific societies in Spain have been included in this project, and its main objective is to reduce the unnecessary use of health interventions in order to agree "do not do" recommendations, based on scientific evidence. The primary objective was to identify interventions that have not proven effective, have limited or doubtful effectiveness, are not cost-effective, or do not have priority. Secondary objectives were: reducing variability in clinical practice, to spread information between doctors and patients to guide decision-making, the appropriate use of health resources and, the promotion of clinical safety and reducing iatrogenesis. The selection process of the 5 "do not do" recommendations was made by Delphi methodology. A total of 25 panellists (all anaesthesiologists) chose between 15 proposals based on: evidence that supports quality, relevance, or clinical impact, and the people they affect. The 5 recommendations proposed were: Do not maintain deep levels of sedation in critically ill patients without a specific indication; Do not perform preoperative chest radiography in patients under 40 years-old with ASA physical status I or II; Do not systematically perform preoperative tests in cataract surgery unless otherwise indicated based on clinical history and physical examination; Do not perform elective surgery in patients with anaemia at risk of bleeding until a diagnostic workup is performed and treatment is given; and not perform laboratory tests (blood count, biochemistry and coagulation) prior to surgery in healthy or low risk patients (ASA I and II) with minimal estimated blood loss.