Open management of the septic abdomen: therapeutic and prognostic considerations based on APACHE II

Failure of Abdominal Wall Closure: Prevention and Management

This article reviews evidence-based techniques for abdominal closure and management strategies when abdominal wall closures fail. In particular, optimal primary fascial closure techniques, the role of prophylactic mesh, considerations for combined hernia repair, closure techniques when the fascia cannot be closed primarily, and management approaches for fascial dehiscence are reviewed.

Superior primary fascial closure rate and lower mortality after open abdomen using negative pressure wound therapy with continuous fascial traction

BACKGROUND

Open abdomen (OA) is a useful option for treatment strategy in many acute abdominal catastrophes. A number of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) methods are used with limited number of comparative studies. The present study was done to examine risk factors for failed delayed primary fascial closure (DPFC) and risk factors for mortality in patients treated with OA.

METHODS

This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of the hospital records of all consecutive patients treated with OA during the years 2009 to 2016 at five tertiary referral hospitals and three secondary referral centers in Finland.

RESULTS

Six hundred seventy-six patients treated with OA were included in the study. Vacuum-assisted closure with continuous mesh-mediated fascial traction (VACM) was the most popular TAC method used (N = 398, 59%) followed by VAC (N = 128, 19%), Bogota bag (N = 128, 19%), and self-designed methods (N = 22, 3%). In multivariate analysis, enteroatmospheric fistula and the number of needed TAC changes increased the risk for failed DPFC (odds ratio [OR], 8.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2-12.8; p < 0.001 and OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.3; p < 0.001, respectively). Instead, VACM and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm as cause for OA both decreased the risk for failed DPFC (OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.0-0.3; p < 0.001 and OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.7; p = 0.012). The overall mortality rate was 30%. In multivariate analysis for mortality, multiorgan dysfunction (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.6-3.6; p < 0.001), and increasing age (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.0-9.7; p < 0.001) predicted increased mortality. Institutional large annual patient volume (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.6; p < 0.001) and ileus and postoperative peritonitis in comparison to severe acute pancreatitis associated with decreased mortality (OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.4; p < 0.001; OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; p = 0.009). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed increased survival in patients treated with VACM in comparison with other TAC methods (LogRank p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

We report superior role for VACM methodology in terms of successful primary fascial closure and increased survival in patients with OA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

The Importance of Abdominal Wall Closure After Definitive Surgery for Enterocutaneous Fistula

INTRODUCTION

The coexistence of an enterocutaneous fistula (ECF) with large abdominal wall defects represent one of the most demanding situations seen by a surgeon. Simultaneous treatment of ECF closure with abdominal wall defect closure has been widely debated. Our objective was to determine if the type of abdominal wall closure was associated with fistula recurrence after definitive surgery for ECF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients submitted to fistula resection with primary anastomosis for ECF closure. Among several variables, total abdominal wall closure (primary independent variable) was assessed as a factor related to the recurrence of the ECF (dependent variable). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

One-hundred and fourteen patients were included. Fistula recurred in 39 patients (34%). Total abdominal wall closure was done in 37 patients (32%). ECF recurred in 16% (6 of 37 patients) when abdominal wall closure was performed, compared to 43% (33 of 77 patients) when this was not (p < 0.02). After multivariate analyses, abdominal wall closure was found as a protective factor against recurrence (p < 0.02). Patients with total abdominal wall closure had one-fourth of risk for recurrence compared to patients without it. Other factors associated to recurrence of ECF were multiple fistulas (p < 0.05), intraoperative blood loss >325 mL (p < 0.05) and preoperative C-reactive protein >0.5 mg/dL (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that total abdominal wall closure is a protective factor against fistula recurrence after definitive surgery for ECF.

Management of the Open Abdomen

Management of the abdominal catastrophe requires a multidisciplinary approach. The plastic surgeon is a key member of the surgical team assisting in the creation of a durable, functional anatomic abdominal wall reconstruction. Plastic surgeons must be familiar with the concepts and pathophysiology related to the open abdomen, techniques for temporary abdominal closure, and when such techniques are appropriate to implement. In this article, the authors provide a review of the open abdomen concept, which practicing plastic surgeons and trainees may find helpful if faced with this clinical scenario.

Open abdomen critical care management principles: resuscitation, fluid balance, nutrition, and ventilator management

The term "open abdomen" refers to a surgically created defect in the abdominal wall that exposes abdominal viscera. Leaving an abdominal cavity temporarily open has been well described for several indications, including damage control surgery and abdominal compartment syndrome. Although beneficial in certain patients, the act of keeping an abdominal cavity open has physiologic repercussions that must be recognized and managed during postoperative care. This review article describes these issues and provides guidelines for the critical care physician managing a patient with an open abdomen.

The role of open abdomen in non-trauma patient: WSES Consensus Paper

The open abdomen (OA) is defined as intentional decision to leave the fascial edges of the abdomen un-approximated after laparotomy (laparostomy). The abdominal contents are potentially exposed and therefore must be protected with a temporary coverage, which is referred to as temporal abdominal closure (TAC). OA use remains widely debated with many specific details deserving detailed assessment and clarification. To date, in patients with intra-abdominal emergencies, the OA has not been formally endorsed for routine utilization; although, utilization is seemingly increasing. Therefore, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Abdominal Compartment Society (WSACS) and the Donegal Research Academy united a worldwide group of experts in an international consensus conference to review and thereafter propose the basis for evidence-directed utilization of OA management in non-trauma emergency surgery and critically ill patients. In addition to utilization recommendations, questions with insufficient evidence urgently requiring future study were identified.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the open abdomen and temporary abdominal closure techniques in non-trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Several challenging clinical situations in patients with peritonitis can result in an open abdomen (OA) and subsequent temporary abdominal closure (TAC). Indications and treatment choices differ among surgeons. The risk of fistula development and the possibility to achieve delayed fascial closure differ between techniques. The aim of this study was to review the literature on the OA and TAC in peritonitis patients, to analyze indications and to assess delayed fascial closure, enteroatmospheric fistula and mortality rate, overall and per TAC technique.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for studies describing the OA in patients of whom 50% or more had peritonitis of a non-traumatic origin.

RESULTS

The search identified 74 studies describing 78 patient series, comprising 4,358 patients of which 3,461 (79%) had peritonitis. The overall quality of the included studies was low and the indications for open abdominal management differed considerably. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) was the most frequent described TAC technique (38 of 78 series). The highest weighted fascial closure rate was found in series describing NPWT with continuous mesh or suture mediated fascial traction (6 series, 463 patients: 73.1%, 95% confidence interval 63.3-81.0%) and dynamic retention sutures (5 series, 77 patients: 73.6%, 51.1-88.1%). Weighted rates of fistula varied from 5.7% after NPWT with fascial traction (2.2-14.1%), 14.6% (12.1-17.6%) for NPWT only, and 17.2% after mesh inlay (17.2-29.5%).

CONCLUSION

Although the best results in terms of achieving delayed fascial closure and risk of enteroatmospheric fistula were shown for NPWT with continuous fascial traction, the overall quality of the available evidence was poor, and uniform recommendations cannot be made.

Management of open abdomen

Non-closure of abdominal fascia and the resultant open abdomen after laparotomy has become a major advance in the management of critically ill or injured patients. The benefits of open abdomen are many and include the prevention of intra-abdominal hypertension and the consequent abdominal compartment syndrome. Appropriately and exquisitely managed, it can provide all the benefits and prevent highly morbid complications of leaving the abdomen open. This review will provide some insights into such management.

Planned re-laparotomy and the need for optimization of physiology and immunology

Planned re-laparotomy or damage control laparotomy (DCL), first described by Dr. Harlan Stone in 1983, has become a widely utilized technique in a broad range of patients and operative situations. Studies have validated the use of DCL by demonstrating decreased mortality and morbidity in trauma, general surgery and abdominal vascular catastrophes. Indications for planned re-laparotomy include severe physiologic derangements, coagulopathy, concern for bowel ischemia, and abdominal compartment syndrome. The immunology of DCL patients is not well described in humans, but promising animal studies suggest a benefit from the open abdomen (OA) and several human trials on this subject are currently underway. Optimal critical care of patients with OA's, including sedation, paralysis, nutrition, antimicrobial and fluid management strategies have been associated with improved closure rates and recovery.

Damage control surgery for abdominal emergencies

BACKGROUND

Damage control surgery is a management sequence initiated to reduce the risk of death in severely injured patients presenting with physiological derangement. Damage control principles have emerged as an approach in non-trauma abdominal emergencies in order to reduce mortality compared with primary definitive surgery.

METHODS

A PubMed/MEDLINE literature review was conducted of data available over the past decade (up to August 2013) to gain information on current understanding of damage control surgery for abdominal surgical emergencies. Future directions for research are discussed.

RESULTS

Damage control surgery facilitates a strategy for life-saving intervention for critically ill patients by abbreviated laparotomy with subsequent reoperation for delayed definitive repair after physiological resuscitation. The six-phase strategy (including damage control resuscitation in phase 0) is similar to that for severely injured patients, although non-trauma indications include shock from uncontrolled haemorrhage or sepsis. Minimal evidence exists to validate the benefit of damage control surgery in general surgical abdominal emergencies. The collective published experience over the past decade is limited to 16 studies including a total of 455 (range 3-99) patients, of which the majority are retrospective case series. However, the concept has widespread acceptance by emergency surgeons, and appears a logical extension from pathophysiological principles in trauma to haemorrhage and sepsis. The benefits of this strategy depend on careful patient selection. Damage control surgery has been performed for a wide range of indications, but most frequently for uncontrolled bleeding during elective surgery, haemorrhage from complicated gastroduodenal ulcer disease, generalized peritonitis, acute mesenteric ischaemia and other sources of intra-abdominal sepsis.

CONCLUSION

Damage control surgery is employed in a wide range of abdominal emergencies and is an increasingly recognized life-saving tactic in emergency surgery performed on physiologically deranged patients.

Open abdomen management: a review of its history and a proposed management algorithm

In this review we look into the historical development of open abdomen management. Its indication has spread in 70 years from intra-abdominal sepsis to damage control surgery and abdominal compartment syndrome. Different temporary abdominal closure techniques are essential to benefit the potential advantages of open abdomen management. Here, we discuss the different techniques and provide a new treatment strategy, based on available evidence, to facilitate more consistent decision making and further research on this complicated surgical topic.

Surgical strategies for management of the open abdomen

Since the mid-1990s the surgical community has seen a surge in the prevalence of open abdomens (OAs) reported in the surgical literature and in clinical practice. The OA has proven to be effective in decreasing mortality and immediate postoperative complications; however, it may come at the cost of delayed morbidity and the need for further surgical procedures. Indications for leaving the abdomen open have broadened to include damage control surgery, abdominal compartment syndrome, and abdominal sepsis. The surgical options for management of the OA are now more diverse and sophisticated, but there is a lack of prospective randomized controlled trials demonstrating the superiority of any particular method. Additionally, critical care strategies for optimization of the patient with an OA are still being developed. Review of the literature suggests a bimodal distribution of primary closure rates, with early closure dependent on postoperative intensive care management and delayed closure more affected by the choice of the temporary abdominal closure technique. Invariably, a small fraction of patients requiring OA management fail to have primary fascial closure and require some form of biologic fascial bridge with delayed ventral hernia repair in the future.

Nutrition and the open abdomen

Adequate nutrition support is critical in the management of patients with an open abdomen. Despite the literature supporting its use in trauma patients, provider concerns and clinical controversies remain regarding the early administration and long-term sequelae of enteral nutrition (EN) therapy in these patients. The purpose of this article is to review the clinical concepts behind the use of the open abdomen, as well as examine the altered nutrition requirements associated with the maintenance of a temporary laparostomy. The rationale for early EN is described, as well as the pros and cons surrounding the use of supplemental parenteral nutrition in those patients unable to meet nutrition goals enterally in a reasonable time frame. Finally, an open abdomen nutrition support algorithm is provided as part of the critical care plan in these patients who represent the sickest of surgical patients.

The Use of Vacuum-Assisted Closure in the Management of Septic Peritonitis in Six Dogs

The purpose of this study was to describe the appropriate surgical technique, postoperative monitoring, and complications encountered with use of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) in six dogs with confirmed septic peritonitis. Initial diagnosis of septic peritonitis was performed by measuring either the blood-to-fluid lactate ratio and glucose concentration differences or cytologic verification of intracellular bacteria. After appropriate surgical procedures were performed to manage the primary cause of peritoneal sepsis, a VAC was performed. Serum and abdominal fluid protein levels were measured, and all complications were noted during the postoperative period. Three of the six dogs (50%) survived to the secondary closure and were subsequent discharged, which is similar to previous studies where the abdomen was either closed primarily or treated with open abdominal drainage. No major complications occurred with bandage management during hospitalization. The results of this study support VAC as a feasible technique for managing septic peritonitis.

Critical care issues in managing complex open abdominal wound

Over the past 30 years, surgical specialties have introduced and expanded the role of open abdominal management in complicated operative cases, necessitating an intensivist's understanding of the indications and unique intensive care unit (ICU) issues related to the open abdomen. When presented with the open abdomen, resuscitation to correct shock is of primary concern. This is accomplished by correction of hypothermia, acidosis, and coagulopathy in trauma and adequate resolution of intra-abdominal hypertension or source control in general surgery. These patients typically require deep sedation and often paralysis and benefit from low-volume ventilatory strategies to prevent and treat acute lung injury. Antibiotics must be tailored to the clinical situation, but in most cases, 24 hours of perioperative treatment is all that is required. In cases of gross contamination and peritonitis, a 5- to 7-day course of broad-spectrum antibiotics may be of benefit.Adequate source control has been demonstrated to have the greatest impact on outcome and when the patient's clinical milieu dictates, bedside washouts. Enteral nutrition should be instituted as early as possible after intestinal continuity has been reestablished. Additional protein is required to account for losses from the open abdomen. Reconstruction may require staging, but in general, should proceed following resolution of shock and control of sepsis. Elevated multiorgan dysfunction score, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), and a rise in peak inspiratory pressure portend poor source control and could result in failure of fascial closure. If unable to proceed to fascial closure, then considerations should be made for planned ventral hernia and subsequent abdominal wall reconstruction.

Short- and long-term outcome of laparostomy following intra-abdominal sepsis

AIM

This study reports the short- and long-term outcomes of laparostomy for intra-abdominal sepsis.

METHOD

Twenty-nine sequential patients with intra-abdominal sepsis treated with a laparostomy over 6 years were included.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 51 years, postoperative intensive care unit stay was 8 days, postoperative length of hospital stay was 87 days and follow up was 2 years. The expected mortality of 25% was insignificantly different from the observed mortality of 33% (P = 0.35). Seven per cent of patients required percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal collections. An enterocutaneous fistula developed in 31% of all patients and in 15% of those treated with vacuum dressings. Component-separation fascial reconstruction was successful and uncomplicated in 83% of recipients compared with 25% of mesh repairs.

CONCLUSION

Laparostomy does not significantly reduce mortality from the expected rate and commits the patient to a prolonged recovery with a high risk of enterocutaneous fistulation. Component-separation fascial reconstruction has a better outcome than mesh repair.

The management of the open abdomen in trauma and emergency general surgery: part 1-damage control

BACKGROUND

The open abdomen technique, after both military and civilian trauma, emergency general or vascular surgery, has been used in some form for the past 30 years. There have been several hundred citations on the indications and the management of the open abdomen. Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management committee convened a study group to organize the world's literature for the management of the open abdomen. This effort was divided into two parts: damage control and the management of the open abdomen. Only damage control is presented in this study. Part 1 is divided into indications for the open abdomen, temporary abdominal closure, staged abdominal repair, and nutrition support of the open abdomen.

METHODS

A literature review was performed for more than 30 years. Prospective and retrospective studies were included. The reviews and case reports were excluded. Of 1,200 articles, 95 were selected. Seventeen surgeons reviewed the articles with four defined criteria. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma primer was used to grade the evidence.

RESULTS

There was only one level I recommendation. A patient with documented abdominal compartment syndrome should undergo decompressive laparotomy.

CONCLUSION

The open abdomen technique remains a heroic maneuver in the care of the critically ill trauma or surgical patient. For the best outcomes, a protocol for the indications, temporary abdominal closure, staged abdominal reconstruction, and nutrition support should be in place.

The Open Peritoneal Cavity: Etiology Correlates with the Likelihood of Fascial Closure

The use of laparostomy in damage control surgery and uncontrolled intra-abdominal infection has been well described. We examined 71 patients who required laparostomy to see if trends in management and outcome could be identified based on the underlying disease state. The underlying etiology included gastrointestinal sepsis ( n = 25), pancreatitis ( n = 21), or trauma ( n = 25). Pancreatitis patients required more operations per patient ( P < 0.05). The likelihood and type of closure (fascial, mesh, or none) was related to the underlying etiology: trauma patients were more likely to have fascial closure ( P < 0.02), patients with GI sepsis were more likely to require mesh closure, and pancreatitis patients were more likely to have no formal closure ( P < 0.02). Only 29 per cent of patients achieved definitive fascial closure. Mortality in trauma patients was 20 per cent, 36 per cent for GI sepsis, and 43 per cent in patients with pancreatitis. Complications of laparostomy included enterocutaneous fistula (16.9%) and abscess formation (7%). Though the use of laparostomy has become more prevalent, it is still associated with significant hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. In our study, the number of operations and likelihood of abdominal closure appears to correlate with the etiology of the underlying disease requiring use of laparostomy.

Bedside open abdominal surgery. Utility and wound management

Abdominal pathology in the critically ill or injured patient frequently leads to the use of open abdominal techniques or the actual performance of abdominal surgery in the ICU. All individuals responsible for the care of patients in the ICU should be familiar with the concepts and techniques of open abdomen wound management. ICU bedside abdominal surgery may be indicated if the patient is too unstable for transport to the operating room and the surgeon believes a limited procedure, such as a decompression of IAH, will be life-saving. Smaller procedures are also feasible, such as intra-abdominal packing changes for which the operating room is unnecessary. Development of a successful Surgery Outside the Operating Room program depends on mature cooperation between the surgeons and other professional ICU staff. Logistic details of such a program should be discussed and a scheduling protocol should be prepared before an emergent need for bedside surgery.

Laparostomy for severe intra-abdominal infection complicating colorectal disease

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of laparostomy in the management of patients with severe intra-abdominal infection resulting from colorectal disease.

METHODS

Seven patients, four with inflammatory bowel disease, two with colorectal carcinoma, and one with diverticular perforation, underwent laparostomy during a six-year period for postoperative, severe, intra-abdominal infection.

RESULTS

The median age was 42 years, the mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 22.7, and the observed mortality was 28.6 percent (2/7 patients). In one patient the laparostomy was closed at 11 days; in all the others the wound was left to heal by granulation and contraction, and two of these later required reconstructive surgery. The median follow-up was three years and seven months.

CONCLUSION

Laparostomy is an effective and practical method of managing patients with severe intra-abdominal infection as a result of colorectal disease.

Management of secondary peritonitis

OBJECTIVE

The authors review current definition, classification, scoring, microbiology, inflammatory response, and goals of management of secondary peritonitis.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Despite improved diagnostic modalities, potent antibiotics, modern intensive care, and aggressive surgical treatment, up to one third of patients still die of severe secondary peritonitis. Against the background of current understanding of the local and systemic inflammatory response associated with peritonitis, there is growing controversy concerning the optimal antibiotic and operative therapy, intensified by lack of properly conducted randomized studies. In this overview the authors attempt to outline controversies, suggest a practical clinical approach, and highlight issues necessitating further research.

METHODS

The authors review the literature and report their experience.

RESULTS

The emerging concepts concerning antibiotic treatment suggest that less-in terms of the number of drugs and the duration of treatment-is better. The classical single operation for peritonitis, which obliterates the source of infection and purges the peritoneal cavity, may be inadequate for severe forms of peritonitis; for the latter, more aggressive surgical techniques are necessary to decompress increased intra-abdominal pressure and prevent or treat persistent and recurrent infection. The widespread acceptance of the more aggressive and demanding surgical methods has been hampered by the lack of randomized trials and reportedly high associated morbidity rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Sepsis represents the host's systemic inflammatory response to bacterial peritonitis. To improve results, both the initiator and the biologic consequences of the peritoneal infective-inflammatory process should be addressed. The initiator may be better controlled in severe forms of peritonitis by aggressive surgical methods, whereas the search for methods to abort its systemic consequences is continuing.

Planned ventral hernia. Staged management for acute abdominal wall defects

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of a staged management scheme for initial and definitive management of acute abdominal wall defects is provided.

METHODS

A four-staged scheme for managing acute abdominal wall defects consists of the following stages: stage I--prosthetic insertion; stage II--2 to 3 weeks after prosthetic insertion and wound granulation, the prosthesis is removed; stage III--2 to 3 days later, planned ventral hernia (split thickness skin graft [STSG] or full-thickness skin and subcutaneous fat); stage IV--6 to 12 months later, definitive reconstruction. Cases were evaluated retrospectively for benefits and risks of the techniques employed.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight cases (39 visceral edema, 27 abdominal sepsis, 22 abdominal wall resection) were managed during 8.5 years. Prostheses included polypropylene mesh in 45 cases, polyglactin 910 mesh in 27, polytetrafluorethylene in 10, and plastic in 6. Twenty-four patients died from their initial disease. The fistula rates associated with prosthetic management was 9%; no wound-related mortality occurred. Most wounds had split thickness skin graft applied after prosthetic removal. Definitive reconstruction was undertaken in 21 patients in the authors' institution (prosthetic mesh in 12 and modified components separation in 9). Recurrent hernias developed in 33% of mesh reconstructions and 11% of the components separation technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors concluded that 1) this staged approach was associated with low morbidity and no technique-related mortality; 2) prostheses placed for edema were removed with fascial approximation accomplished in half of those cases; 3) absorbable mesh provided the advantages of reasonable durability, ease of removal, and relatively low cost--it has become the prosthesis of choice; and 4) the modified components separation technique of reconstruction provided good results in patients with moderate sized defects.

Comparison of APACHE II, Trauma Score, and Injury Severity Score as predictors of outcome in critically injured trauma patients

Trauma Score (TS), APACHE II score, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) have been utilized to quantitate severity of illness in various groups of patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the relationship of the APACHE II score, TS, and "computer-derived" ISS with outcome in critically injured trauma patients. Data were recorded prospectively in a computer database for 428 consecutive trauma admissions. Stepwise discriminate analysis was utilized to determine the best predictor of both intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital outcome. Forty-two patients died in the ICU (10%), and another 18 patients died after leaving the ICU (4%), for a total mortality rate of 14%. The mean p value and partial R2 value obtained from stepwise discriminant analysis of the relationships between APACHE II score, TS, and ISS to ICU and hospital survival are shown. APACHE II score was the best predictor of both ICU and hospital outcome in these critically ill trauma patients. However, when combining all three measures (APACHE II score, TS, and ISS), only a portion of the variance in outcome is explained by the scores (R2 < 0.05). We conclude that scoring systems for outcome prediction should be utilized only as an adjunct to clinical assessment in the evaluation of the severity of illness and mortality risk in critically ill trauma patients.

Supplemental immunoglobulin (ivIgG) treatment in 163 patients with sepsis and septic shock--an observational study as a prerequisite for placebo-controlled clinical trials

In a multicenter observational study of 163 medical and surgical patients with a total of 173 episodes of sepsis or septic shock (Elebute sepsis score: 19.0 +/- 0.5), the effects of supplemental i.v. immunoglobulin (i.v. IG) treatment (unmodified polyvalent IgG pH 4.25, n = 123; for Pseudomonas sepsis, n = 50, Pseudomonas IgG) on multiple organ failure (MOF) were investigated by means of APACHE II score changes (pretreatment: 23.7 +/- 0.6). In 44% of the cases ("responders"), a prompt improvement in APACHE II score (defined as decrease greater than or equal to 4) was evident from day 0 to day 4 after onset of therapy, thus being in close time relationship to the i.v. IG administration. This improvement, associated with a better prognosis (mortality 24% vs. 55%), was found in all subgroups, most importantly the following: polyvalent IgG vs. Pseudomonas IgG treatment; medical vs. surgical patients; moderate vs. severe MOF; and gram-positive vs. gram-negative septicemia. In a small-sized second comparative nonrandomized control group (n = 27, antibiotic treatment alone) of septic patients (Elebute: 14.7 +/- 1.0) with similar MOF severity (APACHE II: 23.6 +/- 1.4), the response rate (30%) was, though not statistically significant, lower by one-third. The optimal baseline score ranges for patient inclusion into future placebo-controlled randomized i.v. IG trials were found to be 20-35 for the APACHE II score and 12-27 for the Elebute score.

A basic program for calculation of APACHE II and Elebute scores and sepsis evaluation in intensive care medicine

This paper describes a program for bedside-practicable calculation of APACHE II score, providing an additional option for both a rapid and sensitive screening as well as for a more specific sepsis assessment by the Elebute score in case of a putative diagnosis of sepsis. Thus, diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of septic patients and the assessment of disease progression and classification of "responders" to therapy can be promptly available in the ICU setting. The program is written in BASIC and therefore can easily be adapted to most microcomputers available on the market.