Intra-Abdominal Pressure Monitoring During Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Open Abdomen

INTRODUCTION

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is commonly used in open abdomen management, where there may be a simultaneous need for prevention of abdominal hypertension, tamponade of hemorrhage, and continuous fascial tension. The regional pressure dynamics of vacuum dressings are poorly understood.

METHODS

Three duroc swine underwent mid-line laparotomy and application of vacuum open abdomen dressing, with and without sponge packing. Twenty-five catheters were placed throughout the abdomen to capture and record pressures in each quadrant as the vacuum system was ranged between (-75 mmHg to -200 mmHg pressure). Vital signs and ventilator pressures were measured and recorded concomitantly.

RESULTS

No variations in ventilatory pressures or vital signs were observed with any setting. NPWT changed pressure in seven of seventy-five catheters (9%), five of which were related to abdominal packing. When data were grouped into abdominal wall, perihepatic, perisplenic, and deep abdominal regions, there was no significant change in abdominal pressure when packing was absent. With packing, only the abdominal wall region showed a pressure change, reaching a maximum of 20% of the set vacuum pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

NPWT does only little to change the intraabdominal pressure, except in superficial locations in packed abdomens and does not appear to cause hemodynamic changes in a porcine open abdomen model. While NPWT may play an important role in fluid scavenging and fascial tensioning, there are likely to be few benefits or drawbacks specifically related to negative abdominal pressure in the deep abdomen.

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia repair analysis in relation to postoperative abdominal compartment syndrome and delayed abdominal closure

AIM

Limited abdominal space in congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) might result in abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and require delayed abdominal closure (DAC). This study reviewed outcomes in pediatric ACS/DAC after CDH repair.

METHODS

Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid and Lilacs databases were reviewed. Data from studies published in English/Spanish/Portuguese between 1990-2020 was collected. Results are presented as descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Sixteen reports offered 118 children, 112 (94.9%) being neonates. There were six ACS (5.1%) and 112 DAC (94.9%). Regarding ACS, the diagnosis was made clinically (n = 4; 66.7%), using Doppler scans (n = 1; 16.7%) or bladder pressure measurement (n = 1; 16.7%). There was one (16.7%) lethal outcome. The rationale to perform DAC was not clearly stated, and measurement of abdominal pressure was not mentioned in all reports. Silo was the preferred approach in 36 children (32.1%), followed by skin closure only (n = 16; 14.3%), vacuum (n = 10; 8.9%), fascia patch and skin closure (n = 5; 4.5%), fascia patch and vacuum dressing (n = 1; 0.9%), fasciotomy (n = 1; 0.9%); with no DAC technique reported in 43 patients (38.4%). Complications after DAC were reported in nine children (8.1%). One DAC using vacuum dressing that was clinically diagnosed with ACS required silo placement. There were 19 (17%) lethal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

ACS/DAC after CDH repair are reported more frequently in neonates (112/118; 94.9%). There is no clear rationale stated behind the decision to perform DAC, with the silo being the preferred approach. Criteria need to be worked for DAC in CDH with large herniated content and small volume abdomen to prevent ACS.

Delayed abdominal closure after congenital diaphragmatic hernia repair

PURPOSE

We present our experience with CDH patients who required delayed abdominal closure following CDH repair.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all CDH repairs from 2004 to 2014 was performed.

RESULTS

233 patients underwent CDH repair, of which 21 required delayed abdominal closure defined as the inability to close the abdominal fascia at the time of CDH repair. The incidence of delayed closure was higher in those undergoing CDH repair on ECMO vs. not on ECMO (40% [17/43] vs. 2% [4/190]; P<0.001). The abdominal wound was temporarily covered by skin only (n=2), skin+prosthetic mesh sutured to the fascia (n=3), preformed silo (n=9), or vacuum assisted closure (VAC®) device (n=7). The mean time to fascial closure was 14.5±7 and 6±3days for patients repaired on ECMO and not on ECMO, respectively. In patients repaired on ECMO, the "primary closure" and "delayed closure" groups were not different in prenatal predictors (liver up, lung-to-head ratio [LHR]), total days on ECMO, ECMO days prior to CDH repair, and survival. In patients repaired on ECMO, the "delayed closure" group had a significantly higher requirement for blood transfusions compared to the "primary closure" group (mean 87±35 vs. 62±27ml of packed RBCs per ECMO day; P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

Delayed abdominal closure was required in 40% of CDH repairs done on ECMO but was rarely required in CDH repairs performed off ECMO. Although associated with an increased need for blood transfusions, delayed closure following CDH repair on ECMO was not associated with increased mortality.

Delayed Closure of 61 Open Abdomen Patients Based on an Algorithm

Hemodynamic resuscitation, source control, and delayed abdominal closure are the three fundamental steps for open abdomen (OA) management. When to start delayed abdominal closure and how to determine which delayed closure method should be applied to each OA patient are not clarified in the literature. We evaluated an algorithm that was developed to address these two questions. A retrospective chart review was conducted for OA patients treated for according to the algorithm. When hemodynamic stabilization and source control using negative pressure therapy resulted in regression of sepsis and decreased procalcitonin levels, patients were assigned to either the skin-only or fascial closure groups according to their Björck scores and open abdominal fascial closure (OAFC) scores. The novel OAFC scoring system was created by adding age and malignancy to the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score. For skin-only closure, skin flaps and skin grafts were used; for fascial closure, an abdominal re-approximation anchor system (ABRA) or ABRA plus biologic mesh was applied. From January 2008 through September 2014, 108 OA patients were managed based on the algorithm; 61 were included in this study. Abdominal closure rate was 90.2 % (55/61). Overall hospital mortality rate was 11.4 % (7/61). Small hernias developed in only 12.5 % (4/32) of the fascial closure group. In this retrospective study, the algorithm with the novel OAFC score provided practical and valid guidance to clarify when to start delayed abdominal closure and which delayed closure method to use for each OA patient.

Delayed dynamic abdominal wall closure following multi-visceral transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Primary closure of the abdominal wall following intestinal transplantation or multivisceral transplantation could become a challenging problem in a significant number of patients.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 38-year-old woman with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) underwent a multi-visceral transplantation for short gut syndrome. She subsequently developed acute graft rejection that proved resistant to conventional treatment. She was relisted and underwent re-transplantation along with kidney transplantation. Abdominal wall closure could not be achieved because of the large size of the graft and bowel oedema. The wound was initially managed with laparostomy followed by insertion of the delayed dynamic abdominal closure (DDAC) device (Abdominal Retraction Anchor – ABRA^® system). Continuous dynamic traction to the wound edges resulted in gradual approximation and complete closure of the abdominal wound was achieved within 3 weeks.

DISCUSSION

Successful abdominal closure after multivisceral transplantation or isolated intestinal transplantation often requires biological mesh, vascularised flaps or abdominal wall transplantation. DDAC eliminated the need for a prosthetic mesh or skin graft and provided an excellent cosmetic result. Adjustment of the dynamic traction at the bedside minimised the need for multiple returns to the operating theatre. It resulted in a well-healed linear scar without a hernia.

CONCLUSION

Dynamic traction allows delayed closure of laparotomy resulting in strong and cosmetically sound wound healing with native tissue.