Dynamic closure techniques for treatment of an open abdomen: an update

Vacuum assisted closure with mesh mediated fascial traction of open abdominal wounds and acute fascial dehiscence, a single institution experience

BACKGROUNDS

Laparostomy is a common means of managing surgical catastrophes, but often results in large ventral hernias which prove difficult to repair. It is also associated with high rates of enteric fistula formation. Dynamic methods of managing the open abdomen have been shown to result in higher rates of fascial closure and fewer complications. Recent publications have suggested the addition of chemical components relaxation with botulinum toxin has an added advantage over prior methods.

METHODS

We report on a series of emergent cases managed by the combination of Botulinum toxin A (BTA) mediated chemical relaxation with a modified method of mesh-mediated fascial traction (MMFT) and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT).

RESULTS

Thirteen cases (nine laparostomies and four fascial dehiscence) were successfully closed in a median of 12 days, using a median of 4 'tightenings', with no clinical herniation detected at follow up so far (median 183 days, IQR 123-292). There were no procedure-related complications, but one death from the underling pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

We report further cases of vacuum assisted mesh-mediated fascial traction (VA-MMFT) utilizing BTA in successfully managing laparostomy and abdominal wound dehiscence and continues the known high rate of successful fascial closure seen when applied in treating the open abdomen.

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 To identify additional studies, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports.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.

Management of the patient with the open abdomen

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was to outline the management of the patient with the open abdomen.

RECENT FINDINGS

An open abdomen approach is used after damage control laparotomy, to decrease risk for postsurgery intra-abdominal hypertension, if reoperation is likely and after primary abdominal decompression.Temporary abdominal wall closure without negative pressure is associated with higher rates of intra-abdominal infection and evisceration. Negative pressure systems improve fascial closure rates but increase fistula formation. Definitive abdominal wall closure should be considered once oedema has subsided and the patient has stabilized. Delayed abdominal closure after trauma (>24-48 h) is associated with less achievement of fascial closure and more complications. Protective lung ventilation should be employed early, particularly if respiratory compromise is evident. Conservative fluid management and less sedation may decrease delirium and increase definitive abdominal closure rates. Extubation may be performed before definitive abdominal closure in selected patients. Antibiotic therapy should be brief, targeted and guideline concordant. Survival depends on the underlying disease, the closure method and the course of hospitalization.

SUMMARY

Changes in the treatment of patients with the open abdomen include negative temporary closure, conservative fluid management, early protective lung ventilation, decreased sedation and extubation before abdominal closure in selected patients.

Who would benefit from open abdomen in severe acute pancreatitis?-a matched case-control study

BACKGROUND

Selection of patients for open abdomen (OA) treatment in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) is challenging. Treatment related morbidity and risk of adverse events are high; however, refractory abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is potentially lethal. Factors influencing the decision to initiate OA treatment are clinically important. We aimed to study these factors to help understand what influences the selection of patients for OA treatment in SAP.

METHODS

A single center study of patients with SAP that underwent OA treatment compared with conservatively treated matched controls.

RESULTS

Within study period, 47 patients treated with OA were matched in a 1:1 fashion with conservatively treated control patients. Urinary output under 20 ml/h (OR 5.0 95% CI 1.8-13.7) and ACS (OR 4.6 95% CI 1.4-15.2) independently associated with OA treatment. Patients with OA treatment had significantly more often visceral ischemia (34%) than controls (6%), P = 0.002. Mortality among patients with visceral ischemia was 63%. Clinically meaningful parameters predicting developing ischemia were not found. OA treatment associated with higher overall 90-day mortality rate (43% vs 17%, P = 0.012) and increased need for necrosectomy (55% vs 21%, P = 0.001). Delayed primary fascial closure was achieved in 33 (97%) patients that survived past OA treatment.

CONCLUSION

Decreased urine output and ACS were independently associated with the choice of OA treatment in patients with SAP. Underlying visceral ischemia was strikingly common in patients undergoing OA treatment, but predicting ischemia in these patients seems difficult.

Early Initiation of a Standardized Open Abdomen Treatment With Vacuum Assisted Mesh-Mediated Fascial Traction Achieves Best Results

Background: The open abdomen (OA) is an important approach for managing intra-abdominal catastrophes and continues to be the standard of care. Complete fascial closure is an essential treatment objective and can be achieved by the use of different dynamic closure techniques. Both surgical technique and-decision making are essential for optimal patient outcome in terms of fascial closure. The aim of this study was to analyse patients' outcome after the use of mesh-mediated fascial traction (MMFT) associated with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and identify important factors that negatively influenced final fascial closure. Methods: A single center ambispective analysis was performed including all patients treated for an open abdomen in a tertiary referral center from 3/2011 till 2/2020. All patients with a minimum survival >24 h after initiation of treatment were analyzed. The data concerning patient management was collected and entered into the Open Abdomen Route of the European Hernia Society (EHS). Patient basic characteristics considering OA indication, primary fascial closure, as well as important features in surgical technique including time after index procedure to start mesh mediated fascial traction, surgical closure techniques and patients' long-term outcomes were analyzed. Results: Data were obtained from 152 patients who underwent open abdomen therapy (OAT) in a single center study. Indications for OAT as per-protocol analysis were sepsis (33.3%), abdominal compartment syndrome (31.6%), followed by peritonitis (24.2%), abdominal trauma (8.3%) and burst abdomen (2.4%). Overall fascial closure rate was 80% as in the per-protocol analysis. When patients that started OA management with MMFT and NPWT from the initial surgery a significantly better fascial closure rate was achieved compared to patients that started 3 or more days later (p < 0.001). An incisional hernia developed in 35.8% of patients alive with a median follow-up of 49 months (range 6-96 months). Conclusion: Our main findings emphasize the importance of a standardized treatment plan, initiated early on during management of the OA. The use of vacuum assisted closure in combination with MMFT showed high rates of fascial closure. Absence of initial intraperitoneal NPWT as well as delayed start of MMFT were risk factors for non-fascial closure. Initiation of OA with VACM should not be unnecessary delayed.

Factors influencing the fascial closure rate after open abdomen treatment: Results from the European Hernia Society (EuraHS) Registry : Surgical technique matters

Purpose

Definitive fascial closure is an essential treatment objective after open abdomen treatment and mitigates morbidity and mortality. There is a paucity of evidence on factors that promote or prevent definitive fascial closure.

Methods

A multi-center multivariable analysis of data from the Open Abdomen Route of the European Hernia Society included all cases between 1 May 2015 and 31 December 2019. Different treatment elements, i.e. the use of a visceral protective layer, negative-pressure wound therapy and dynamic closure techniques, as well as patient characteristics were included in the multivariable analysis. The study was registered in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform via the German Registry for Clinical Trials (DRK00021719).

Results

Data were included from 630 patients from eleven surgical departments in six European countries. Indications for OAT were peritonitis (46%), abdominal compartment syndrome (20.5%), burst abdomen (11.3%), abdominal trauma (9%), and other conditions (13.2%). The overall definitive fascial closure rate was 57.5% in the intention-to-treat analysis and 71% in the per-protocol analysis. The multivariable analysis showed a positive correlation of negative-pressure wound therapy (odds ratio: 2.496, p < 0.001) and dynamic closure techniques (odds ratio: 2.687, p < 0.001) with fascial closure and a negative correlation of intra-abdominal contamination (odds ratio: 0.630, p = 0.029) and the number of surgical procedures before OAT (odds ratio: 0.740, p = 0.005) with DFC.

Conclusion

The clinical course and prognosis of open abdomen treatment can significantly be improved by the use of treatment elements such as negative-pressure wound therapy and dynamic closure techniques, which are associated with definitive fascial closure.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10029-020-02336-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dynamic Fascial Closure With Vacuum-Assisted Wound Closure and Mesh-Mediated Fascial Traction (VAWCM) Treatment of the Open Abdomen-An Updated Systematic Review

Introduction: Several different temporary abdominal closure techniques are described in the context of open abdomen treatment. Techniques based on dynamic fascial closure combined with negative pressure therapy have gained popularity and seem to result in the highest fascial closure rates without increased complications and are highlighted in recent guidelines and recommendations. One dynamic closure technique is the vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM) technique, first described in 2007. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the VAWCM technique regarding a number of short- and long-term results.

Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published between January 1, 2006 and May 8, 2020. The review was independently performed by the two authors according to the PRISMA statements for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Results were pooled for presentation of weighted means when applicable.

Results: A total of 220 articles were screened by title and abstract. Thirty-two articles were assessed for eligibility by full-text review and 15 articles finally remained for review. A total of 600 patients treated with VAWCM were included. The pooled weighted means were as follows: fascial closure, 83.5%; enteroatmospheric fistula, 5.6%; planned ventral hernia, 6.2%; in-hospital survival, 72%; and incisional hernia incidence, 40.5%. Long-term survival ranged between 22 and 72%. Quality of life (SF-36) was reported in two studies showing lower scores than the population mean especially in physical domains. Incisional hernia resulted in lower scores in one but not in the other study.

Discussion: The results of 600 VAWCM-treated patients from 15 studies were evaluated in this systematic review. Earlier findings with high fascial closure rates, low enteroatmospheric fistula, and planned ventral hernia rates as well as high incisional hernia incidences were underlined. Permanent mesh for efficient fascial traction and reinforcement at fascial closure seem to be the next step in evolving an optimal temporary closure technique in open abdomen treatment.