The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial

Safety and efficacy of prophylactic onlay resorbable synthetic mesh with a comprehensive wound bundle at laparotomy closure in high-risk emergency abdominal surgery: an observational study

BACKGROUND

There has been a slow uptake of wound bundles and prophylactic mesh augmentation (PMA) strategies despite evidence supporting their role in reducing burst abdomens and incisional hernias (IH). This study evaluates outcomes of resorbable synthetic prophylactic mesh augmentation in reducing these rates and assesses the complication profile in emergency abdominal surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective ethically approved observational study of all patients who underwent emergency open abdominal surgery using supplemental prophylactic onlay TIGR® Mesh at Letterkenny University Hospital between September 2017 and April 2024 was undertaken to assess safety, complication profiles and outcomes. Comprehensive wound bundles and subcutaneous space closure were used.

RESULTS

Of the 49 patients included, the mean age was 64 years (± 16.4, 31-86), 33/49 (67%) were female, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 27 (± 7.4,17.3-45). 20% of patients had previous abdominal surgery. 19/49 (38%) patients experienced postoperative complications, of these 8 (42%) were Clavien-Dindo Grade I-II, and 11 (58%) were Grade III-IV. There were 7 in-hospital post-operative deaths (Grade V). 8 patients had open abdomens. Thirteen surgical site occurrences (SSO) were identified in 9 (18%) patients. There were no burst abdomens. Four of the superficial SSIs responded to antibiotics while one required opening and wound NPWT. Three patients (6%) developed an incisional hernia, which was detected at a mean follow-up of 353 days.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive, evidence-based wound bundle using onlay PMA with a synthetic resorbable mesh, achieves efficacious, safe abdominal wall closure in high-risk, emergency laparotomy patients, including those who require delayed abdominal wall closure.

Open abdomen versus primary closure in nontrauma patients: A weighted analysis of a single-center experience

INTRODUCTION

The open abdomen (OA) technique is nowadays a worldwide strategy both for trauma and emergency general surgery. Despite the attempt at conducting prospective studies, a high level of evidence is far from established. The aim of this study was to investigate if we overused this strategy and if it improved the postoperative course of our patients.

METHODS

Emergency laparotomies from 2017 and 2023 were reviewed and stratified according to OA and closed abdomen (CA). Differences were balanced by inverse probability weighting, and the 90-day mortality was estimated. Subgroup analysis was carried out for patients with a Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI) of >26, bowel obstruction, bowel ischemia (BI) and gastrointestinal perforation.

RESULTS

Of the 320 patients, 167 were CA and 153 were OA. Groups were different for American Society of Anesthesiologists, comorbidities, transfusion rate, Physiologic and Operative Severity Score for the Study of Mortality and Morbidity score, MPI, Clinical Frailty Scale score, diagnosis, and resection. Two balanced pseudo-populations were created. The 90-day survival rate was 50.8% for CA and 60.8% for OA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; confidence interval [CI], 0.40-1.55; p = 0.502). At the Cox regression, the Clinical Frailty Scale score (HR, 1.125; 95% CI, 1.01-1.25; p = 0.033) and BI (HR, 5.531; 95% CI, 2.37-12.89; p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for mortality. Transfusion rate (odds ratio [OR], 3.44; 95% CI, 1.44-8.23; p < 0.006) and length of stay in the intensive care unit (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.20; p < 0.001) were associated with major complications. Open abdomen did not modify mortality in the case of bowel obstruction, MPI >26, or gastrointestinal perforation. Finally, OA (HR, 0.056; 95% CI, 0.01-0.22; p = 0.001) and large bowel resection (HR, 6.442; 95% CI, 1.28-32.31; p = 0.040) were predictors of longer survival in the subgroup of patients with BI.

CONCLUSION

Open abdomen was not associated with a higher complication rate or higher mortality but did result in a longer in-hospital stay. The only setting where OA seemed to be advantageous was in the BI population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

[Vacuum-assisted laparostomy for diffuse postoperative peritonitis in patients with abdominal cancers]

OBJECTIVE

To improve the outcomes in patients with abdominal cancers complicated by diffuse postoperative peritonitis (DPP) using vacuum-assisted laparostomy (VAL) with elective staged peritoneal lavage.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 141 patients with DPP: group I (63 patients) - VAL, group II (78 patients) - redo laparotomy on demand (RD). Negative pressure therapy was performed using commercial vacuum systems with vacuum dressing changes after 48 - 72 hours. We assessed mortality, morbidity, abdominal cavity status (Björck classification) and incidence of primary fascial closure of abdominal cavity.

RESULTS

There were 10 (15.9%) and 24 (30.8%) deaths, respectively (p=0.040). Complications Clavien-Dindo grade 3-5 were significantly more common in the 2nd group. According to the Björck classification, grades 2A (39.7%) and 2B (41.3%) became more common after the 2nd peritoneal lavage in the 1st group. After the 3rd and further staged peritoneal lavages, «frozen open abdomen» (grade 3A and 4) prevailed. This classification revealed significant correlations with abdominal index, intra-abdominal hypertension and C-reactive protein. Primary fascial closure of abdominal cavity was performed in 40 (63.5%) patients in the 1st group.

CONCLUSION

Vacuum-assisted laparostomy is effective for diffuse postoperative peritonitis compared to on-demand relaparotomy. This approach provides lower mortality and morbidity rates, as well as better control over local inflammatory process and intra-abdominal pressure.

Standardization of the strategy for open abdomen in nontrauma emergency laparotomy: A prospective study of outcomes in primary versus temporary abdominal closure

BACKGROUND

The indications for temporary abdominal closure in nontrauma surgery are heterogeneous and with limited data on clinical outcomes. This study aimed to report the outcomes of primary closure compared with temporary abdominal closure after nontrauma emergency laparotomy within a standardized clinical setting adapted from international guidelines.

METHODS

Included were all nontrauma patients undergoing emergency laparotomy between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, at Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev in Denmark. All patients received treatment on the basis of standardized bundle of care trajectory for major emergency abdominal surgery. Mortality, risks of re-laparotomy, and postoperative complications were assessed using Kaplan-Meier plots and multiple logistic regression modeling.

RESULTS

Of the 576 included patients, temporary abdominal closure was performed in 57 (10%) patients in the initial surgery. Indications for temporary abdominal closure included damage control strategy as the result of considerable hemodynamic instability in 21 (37%) patients, need for reassessment of bowel viability in 21 (37%) patients, and loss of domain in 15 (25%) patients. Fascial closure was achieved after a median period of 2 days. Sixty-seven patients (12%) underwent re-laparotomy, with temporary abdominal closure performed in 10 (15%) of the cases. Patients with temporary abdominal closure had a significantly greater risk of postoperative complications (odds ratio 2.58, 95% confidence interval 1.38-4.89, P = .003). There were no significant differences in the risks of fascial dehiscence, re-laparotomy, or 30- or 90-days mortality.

CONCLUSION

Temporary abdominal closure was performed in 10% of patients undergoing nontrauma emergency laparotomy, with the primary indications being damage control strategy and need for reassessment of bowel viability. Patients undergoing temporary abdominal closure had a significantly greater risk of postoperative complications.

Current diagnosis and management of acute colonic diverticulitis: What you need to know

ABSTRACT

Acute colonic diverticulitis is a common disease treated by acute care surgeons. Acute uncomplicated colonic diverticulitis involves thickening of the colon wall with inflammatory changes and less commonly requires the expertise of a surgeon; many cases may be treated as an outpatient with or without antibiotics. Complicated diverticulitis involves phlegmon, abscess, peritonitis, obstruction, stricture, and/or fistula and usually requires inpatient hospital admission, treatment with antibiotics, and consideration for intervention including operative management. This review will discuss what the acute care surgeon needs to know about diagnosis and management of acute colonic diverticulitis.

Revolution in sepsis: a symptoms-based to a systems-based approach?

Severe infection and sepsis are medical emergencies. High morbidity and mortality are linked to CNS dysfunction, excessive inflammation, immune compromise, coagulopathy and multiple organ dysfunction. Males appear to have a higher risk of mortality than females. Currently, there are few or no effective drug therapies to protect the brain, maintain the blood brain barrier, resolve excessive inflammation and reduce secondary injury in other vital organs. We propose a major reason for lack of progress is a consequence of the treat-as-you-go, single-nodal target approach, rather than a more integrated, systems-based approach. A new revolution is required to better understand how the body responds to an infection, identify new markers to detect its progression and discover new system-acting drugs to treat it. In this review, we present a brief history of sepsis followed by its pathophysiology from a systems' perspective and future opportunities. We argue that targeting the body's early immune-driven CNS-response may improve patient outcomes. If the barrage of PAMPs and DAMPs can be reduced early, we propose the multiple CNS-organ circuits (or axes) will be preserved and secondary injury will be reduced. We have been developing a systems-based, small-volume, fluid therapy comprising adenosine, lidocaine and magnesium (ALM) to treat sepsis and endotoxemia. Our early studies indicate that ALM therapy shifts the CNS from sympathetic to parasympathetic dominance, maintains cardiovascular-endothelial glycocalyx coupling, reduces inflammation, corrects coagulopathy, and maintains tissue O2 supply. Future research will investigate the potential translation to humans.

Damage control surgery in emergency general surgery: What you need to know

ABSTRACT

Damage-control surgery (DCS) is a strategy adopted to limit initial operative interventions in the unstable surgical patient, delaying definitive repairs and abdominal wall closure until physiologic parameters have improved. Although this concept of "physiology over anatomy" was initially described in the management of severely injured trauma patients, the approaches of DCS have become common in the management of nontraumatic intra-abdominal emergencies.While the utilization of damage-control methods in emergency general surgery (EGS) is controversial, numerous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes, making DCS an essential technique for all acute care surgeons. Following a brief history of DCS and its indications in the EGS patient, the phases of DCS will be discussed including an in-depth review of preoperative resuscitation, techniques for intra-abdominal source control, temporary abdominal closure, intensive care unit (ICU) management of the open abdomen, and strategies to improve abdominal wall closure.

Continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy: CONTINT: a randomized controlled trial [NCT00544583]

BACKGROUND

High-level evidence regarding the technique of abdominal wall closure for patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy is sparse. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two commonly applied abdominal wall closure strategies after primary emergency midline laparotomy.

METHODS/DESIGN

CONTINT was a multi-center pragmatic open-label exploratory randomized controlled parallel trial. Two different abdominal wall closure strategies in patients undergoing primary midline laparotomy for an emergency surgical intervention with a suspected septic focus in the abdominal cavity were compared: the continuous, all-layer suture and the interrupted suture technique. The primary composite endpoint was burst abdomen within 30 days after surgery or incisional hernia within 12 months. As reliable data on this composite primary endpoint were not available for patients undergoing emergency surgery, it was planned to initially recruit 80 patients and conduct an interim analysis after these had completed the 12 months follow-up.

RESULTS

From August 31, 2009, to June 28, 2012, 124 patients were randomized of whom 119 underwent surgery and were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principal. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between the continuous suture (C: 27.1%) and the interrupted suture group (I: 30.0%). None of the individual components of the primary endpoint (reoperation due to burst abdomen after 30 days (C: 13.5%, I: 15.1%) and reoperation due to incisional hernia (C: 3.0%, I:11.1%)) differed between groups. Time needed for fascial closure was longer in the interrupted suture group (C: 12.8 ± 4.5 min, I: 17.4 ± 6.1 min). BMI was associated with burst abdomen during the first 30 days with an OR of 1.17 (95% CI 1.04-1.32).

CONCLUSION

This RCT showed no difference between continuous suture with slowly absorbable suture versus interrupted rapidly absorbable sutures after primary emergency midline laparotomy in rates of postoperative burst abdomen and incisional hernia after one year. However, the trial was stopped after the interim analysis due to futility as there was no chance to show superiority of one suture technique.

The open abdomen in trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery: comprehensive, expert, narrative review

BACKGROUND

The open abdomen is an innovation that greatly improved surgical understanding of damage control, temporary abdominal closure, staged abdominal reconstruction, viscera and enteric fistula care, and abdominal wall reconstruction. This article provides an evidence-informed, expert, comprehensive narrative review of the open abdomen in trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery.

METHODS

A group of 12 international trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery experts were invited to review current literature and important concepts surrounding the open abdomen.

RESULTS

The open abdomen may be classified using validated systems developed by a working group in 2009 and modified by the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome-The Abdominal Compartment Society in 2013. It may be indicated in major trauma, intra-abdominal sepsis, vascular surgical emergencies, and severe acute pancreatitis; to facilitate second look laparotomy or avoid or treat abdominal compartment syndrome; and when the abdominal wall cannot be safely closed. Temporary abdominal closure and staged abdominal reconstruction methods include a mesh/sheet, transabdominal wall dynamic fascial traction, negative pressure wound therapy, and hybrid negative pressure wound therapy and dynamic fascial traction. This last method likely has the highest primary fascial closure rates. Direct peritoneal resuscitation is currently an experimental strategy developed to improve primary fascial closure rates and reduce complications in those with an open abdomen. Primary fascial closure rates may be improved by early return to the operating room; limiting use of crystalloid fluids during the surgical interval; and preventing and/or treating intra-abdominal hypertension, enteric fistulae, and intra-abdominal collections after surgery. The majority of failures of primary fascial closure and enteroatmospheric fistula formation may be prevented using effective temporary abdominal closure techniques, providing appropriate resuscitation fluids and nutritional support, and closing the abdomen as early as possible.

CONCLUSION

Subsequent stages of the innovation of the open abdomen will likely involve the design and conduct of prospective studies to evaluate appropriate indications for its use and effectiveness and safety of the above components of open abdomen management.