Prophylactic Onlay Mesh Implantation During Definitive Fascial Closure After Open Abdomen Therapy (PROMOAT): Absorbable or Non-absorbable? Methodical Description and Results of a Feasibility Study

Damage Control Laparotomy and Management of the Open Abdomen

Management of the open abdomen has been used for decades by general surgeons. Techniques have evolved over those decades to improve control of infection, fluid loss, and improve the ability to close the abdomen to avoid hernia formation. The authors explore the history, indications, and techniques of open abdomen management in multiple settings. The most important considerations in open abdomen management include the reason for leaving the abdomen open, prevention and mitigation of ongoing organ dysfunction, and eventual plans for abdominal closure.

Damage Control Surgery and Transfer in Emergency General Surgery

Selective non traumatic emergency surgery patients are targets for damage control surgery (DCS) to prevent or treat abdominal compartment syndrome and the lethal triad. However, DCS is still a subject of controversy. As a concept, DCS describes a series of abbreviated surgical procedures to allow rapid source control of hemorrhage and contamination in patients with circulatory shock to allow resuscitation and stabilization in the intensive care unit followed by delayed return to the operating room for definitive surgical management once the patient becomes physiologic stable. If appropriately applied, the DCS morbidity and mortality can be significantly reduced.

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.

Study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled pilot study on decompressive laparotomy vs. decompressive craniectomy for intractable intracranial pressure after traumatic brain injury: The SCALPEL study

Introduction

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is the ultimate intervention to lower intracranial pressure (ICP) following severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, this intervention is associated with considerable adverse events and a higher proportion of survivors with poor functional outcomes.

Research question

In a multicompartment system ICP is associated with intraabdominal pressure (IAP) due to cerebral venous outflow from the brain. This is the rationale for decompressive laparotomy (DL) to control ICP after TBI as reported by experimental and retrospective clinical data. The safety profile of DL is superior to DC. This study aims to randomly assign patients with intractable high ICP after severe TBI to DL or DC.

Material and methods

Among other inclusion criteria, ICP must be above 20 mmHg (1-12 h) despite sedation and all other measures according to current guidelines. The primary outcome is the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale assessed after twelve months. Further secondary outcome measures are compartmental pressure values, complications, etc. After 20 initial patients, results will be reviewed by the ethics committees and safety monitoring board to decide on the enrolment of 80 additional patients.

Results

The study is designed to provide not only high-quality prospective data for the first time on this treatment approach, its two-stage design (20 + 80 pts) also provides maximum patient safety. This protocol conforms with the SPIRIT 2013 Statement. Ethics approval was granted by our but also 5 other university ethics committees (registration 473/18S).

Conclusion

Registration was performed prior to study initiation in November 2021 (registration number NCT05115929).

Biosynthetic meshes in contaminated fields: where are we now? A systematic review and meta-analysis in humans

PURPOSE

Selection of an appropriate mesh reinforcement for hernia repair in contaminated fields is a significant problem for surgeons. To date the proper mesh for contaminated fields has not been found. Biosynthetic meshes have emerged as new treatment option in contaminated fields. This study aims to evaluate the postoperative outcomes of biosynthetic meshes in contaminated fields.

METHODS

Systematic electronic search (PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus), according to PRISMA criteria, was performed. A literature search of scientific papers was performed by two reviewers until April 2021. Articles were chosen based on reference to biosynthetic meshes, their use in infected fields, and in human subjects. GRADE methodology and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of studies. According to CDC-Centers for Disease Control classes patients were divided into two subgroups, group 1 (CDC class 2) and group 2 (CDC classes 3-4).

RESULTS

The research included 21 articles and 1619 patients were analyzed. Long-term follow-up showed a significant higher recurrence rate than short-term follow-up. P < 0.001. Meta-analysis of these studies showed that the SSI were significantly higher in CDC classes 3-4 than CDC class 2 (P < 0.01). No differences were found in SSO (P = 0.06) and recurrence (P = 0.37) rate among the two groups. Phasix™ was the most common mesh in 15 studies. The mean follow-up was 23.0 months. The surgical site infection (SSI) rate was 17.3%. The surgical site occurrence (SSO) rate was 32.4%. Recurrence rate was 11.5%.

CONCLUSION

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical outcomes of abdominal wall repair using biosynthetic mesh in contaminated-infected settings. The results show good results in patients at high risk of postoperative wound complications. The aim of this study is to add to the growing literature on biosynthetic mesh a picture of current literature evidence to help future researchers performing further studies on this topic.

Don't fear the (small) bite: A narrative review of the rationale and misconceptions surrounding closure of abdominal wall incisions

Background

The most common complications related to the closure of abdominal wall incisions are surgical site infections, wound dehiscence and the development of an incisional hernia. Several factors relating to the surgical technique and the materials used have been identified and analysed over the years, as mirrored in the current recommendations of the European Hernia Society, but some misconceptions still remain that hinder wide implementation.

Method

A literature search was performed in the PubMed and GoogleScholar databases on 15 July 2021 and additionally on 30 March 2022 to include recent updates. The goal was to describe the scientific background behind the optimal strategies for reducing incisional hernia risk after closure of abdominal wall incisions in a narrative style review.

Results

An aponeurosis alone, small bites/small steps continuous suture technique should be used, using a slowly resorbable USP 2/0 or alternatively USP 0 suture loaded in a small ½ circle needle. The fascial edges should be properly visualised and tension should be moderate.

Conclusion

Despite the reproducibility, low risk and effectiveness in reducing wound complications following abdominal wall incisions, utilisation of the recommendation of the guidelines of the European Hernia Society remain relatively limited. More work is needed to clear misconceptions and disseminate the established knowledge and technique especially to younger surgeons.