Temporary Abdominal Closure Techniques Research Articles

Managing the Open Abdomen: Selecting an Appropriate Treatment Strategy.

Significance: The laparotomy is a common surgical procedure with a wide range of indications. Ideally, once the goals of surgery were achieved, the incision edges could then be approximated and the abdomen primarily closed. However, in some circumstances, it may be impossible to achieve primary closure, and instead the abdomen is intentionally left open. This review discusses the indications and objectives for the open abdomen (OA), summarizes the most common techniques for temporary abdominal closure, and illustrates treatment algorithms grounded in the current recommendations from specialty experts. Recent Advances: Still a relatively young technique, multiple strategies, and technologies have emerged to manage the OA. So too have the recommendations evolved, based on updated classifications that take wound characteristics into account. Recent studies have also brought greater clarity on recommendations for managing infection and malnutrition to support improved clinical outcomes. Critical Issues: The status of the OA can change rapidly depending on the patient's condition, the wound quality, and many other factors. Thus, there is a significant need for comprehensive treatment strategies that can be adapted to these developing circumstances. Future Directions: Treatment recommendations should be continuously updated as new technologies are introduced and old techniques fall out of use.

Photo-crosslinking modified gelatin-silk fibroin hydrogel for accelerating wound repair of open abdomen

Open abdomen (OA), a major advance in modern trauma surgery, enables the treatment of severe abdominal trauma, infections, and hypertension by temporarily closing the abdominal cavity without suturing. Although OA can reduce mortality rates, it also presents challenges such as disruption of the abdominal environment, intestinal exposure, and impaired wound healing. Current temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques using polypropylene (PP) mesh are susceptible to abrasion and rupture of the intestine, leading to adhesions and serious complications such as intestinal fistulas and chronic wounds. These complications seriously impact outcomes due to mesh rigidity and its incompatibility with surrounding tissues. In this study, we designed a multifunctional hydrogel composed of GelMA (Gelatin Methacryloyl) and SilMA (Silk Fibroin Methacryloyl) as a promising solution for open abdominal wound repair. In vitro experiments confirmed the biocompatibility, self-healing properties, pro-angiogenic effects, and promotion of macrophage polarization. In vivo studies revealed that the GelMA-SilMA hydrogel could enhance abdominal wall tissue thickness and integrity via isolating the peritoneal cavity, protecting the intestinal tract, polarizing macrophages, promoting collagen formation, inducing neovascularization, inhibiting oxidative stress, and suppressing inflammation. Furthermore, immunofluorescence, immunohistochemistry, and RNA sequencing were employed to evaluate the wound healing mechanisms of GelMA-SilMA hydrogels. The results demonstrated that the hydrogels can promote angiogenesis, inhibit inflammation and immune responses, and enhance wound healing by activating the HIF-a-VEGF signaling pathway, RAP1 signaling pathway, and PI3K-AKT signaling pathway. Hence, the multifunctional GelMA-SilMA hydrogel has tremendous potential for clinical use in open abdominal wound repair.

Temporary abdominal closure in oncological patients: Surgical characteristics and implications.

In critically ill patients, temporary abdominal closure (TAC) is utilized for conditions like abdominal compartment syndrome risk, gross abdominal contamination, and intestinal loop viability doubts. TAC techniques aim to safeguard abdominal contents, drain intraperitoneal fluids, and minimize fascia and skin damage. Our goal is to outline clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes in oncological patients undergoing peritoneostomy. Patients undergoing TAC with vacuum therapy at a tertiary oncological center were studied, with data sourced from an institutional database. Forty-seven patients (54.3% female), with an average age of 63.1 ± 12.3 years, were included in the study. The primary tumor site was predominantly gastrointestinal (78.2%). Patients presented systemic signs of chronic disease, reflected by a mean body mass index of 18.2 ± 7.6 kg/m², hemoglobin level of 9.2 ± 1.8 g/dL, and albumin level of 2.3 ± 0.6 g/dL. Additionally, most patients had a low-performance status (53% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1/2, 44.8% Karnofsky score ≤80, and 61.2% Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥6). Emergency surgical complications were the main reasons for initial surgery (68%), with the majority attributed to fecal peritonitis (65.9%). Only 14.8% of patients achieved complete abdominal closure with an average of 24.8 days until closure. The in-hospital mortality rate was 85.2%. TAC is an alternative for oncological patients with surgical complications, but it carries a high mortality rate due to the compromised conditions of the patients.

An injectable, self-healable, antibacterial, and pro-healing oxidized pullulan polysaccharide/carboxymethyl chitosan hydrogel for early protection of open abdominal wounds

Open abdomen (OA) is an effective method for treating critical abdominal conditions such as severe abdominal infections. The temporary abdominal closure (TAC) technique is often used to temporarily restore the physiological environment of the abdominal cavity and maintain the homeostatic balance of the abdominal cavity. However, most of the common TAC materials available today lack bio-responsiveness, tend to abrade the intestinal canal, and lead to delayed tissue healing of the wound. Hydrogels could mimic the extracellular matrix and have shown significant potential in life science fields such as tissue regeneration, wound repair, and controlled drug release. In this study, a composite hydrogel scaffold was constructed by the Schiff base reaction of oxidized pullulan polysaccharide with carboxymethyl chitosan. The hydrogel exhibited excellent self-healing, cellular biocompatibility, and antibacterial and anti-inflammatory abilities, and in experiments it reduced secondary damage caused by friction between tissue and patch, thereby preventing serious complications such as intestinal fistula, promoted M1–M2 polarization of macrophages, reduced the inflammatory response, regulated the inflammatory microenvironment in vivo, promoted angiogenesis and granulation tissue regeneration, and accelerated wound healing. Therefore, our hydrogel provides a new strategy for material-assisted wound protection during OA and has potential clinical applications.

Abdominal wall Necrotizing Fasciitis Due to Small Intestine Rupture- Successful Management with Temporary Abdominal Closure Technique

Abdominal wall Necrotizing Fasciitis Due to Small Intestine Rupture- Successful Management with Temporary Abdominal Closure Technique

The temporary abdominal closure techniques used for trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The choice of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) method affects the prognosis of trauma patients. Previous studies on TAC are challenging to extrapolate due to data heterogeneity. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and comparison of various TAC techniques. We accessed web-based databases for studies on the clinical outcomes of TAC techniques. Recognized techniques, including negative-pressure wound therapy with or without continuous fascial traction, skin tension, meshes, Bogota bags, and Wittman patches, were classified via a method of closure such as skin-only closure vs. patch closure vs. vacuum closure; and via dynamics of treatment like static therapy (ST) vs. dynamic therapy (DT). Study endpoints included in-hospital mortality, definitive fascial closure (DFC) rate, and incidence of intraabdominal complications. Among 1,065 identified studies, 37 papers comprising 2,582 trauma patients met the inclusion criteria. The vacuum closure group showed the lowest mortality (13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6%-19%) and a moderate DFC rate (74%; 95% CI, 67%-82%). The skin-only closure group showed the highest mortality (35%; 95% CI, 7%-63%) and the highest DFC rate (96%; 95% CI, 93%-99%). In the second group analysis, DT showed better outcomes than ST for all endpoints. Vacuum closure was favorable in terms of in-hospital mortality, ventral hernia, and peritoneal abscess. Skin-only closure might be an alternative TAC method in carefully selected groups. DT may provide the best results; however, further studies are needed.

Patients with an Open Abdomen in Asian, American and European Continents: A Comparative Analysis from the International Register of Open Abdomen (IROA)

BackgroundInternational register of open abdomen (IROA) enrolls patients from several centers in American, European, and Asiatic continent. The aim of our study is to compare the characteristics, management and clinical outcome of adult patients treated with OA in the three continents.Material and methodsA prospective analysis of adult patients enrolled in the international register of open abdomen (IROA). Trial registration: NCT02382770.Results1183 patients were enrolled from American, European and Asiatic Continent. Median age was 63 years (IQR 49–74) and was higher in the European continent (65 years, p < 0.001); 57% were male. The main indication for OA was peritonitis (50.6%) followed by trauma (15.4%) and vascular emergency (13.5%) with differences among the continents (p < 0.001). Commercial NPWT was preferred in America and Europe (77.4% and 52.3% of cases) while Barker vacuum pack (48.2%) was the preferred temporary abdominal closure technique in Asia (p < 0.001). Definitive abdominal closure was achieved in 82.3% of cases in America (fascial closure in 90.2% of cases) and in 56.4% of cases in Asia (p < 0.001). Prosthesis were mostly used in Europe (17.3%, p < 0.001). The overall entero-atmospheric fistula rate 2.5%. Median open abdomen duration was 4 days (IQR 2–7). The overall intensive care unit and hospital length-of-stay were, respectively, 8 and 11 days (no differences between continents). The overall morbidity and mortality rates for America, Europe, and Asia were, respectively, 75.8%, 75.3%, 91.8% (p = 0.001) and 31.9%, 51.6%, 56.9% (p < 0.001).ConclusionThere is no uniformity in OA management in the different continents. Heterogeneous adherence to international guidelines application is evident. Different temporary abdominal closure techniques in relation to indications led to different outcomes across the continents. Adherence to guidelines, combined with more consistent data, will ultimately allow to improving knowledge and outcome.

Simple suture whipstitch closure is a reasonable option for many patients requiring temporary abdominal closure for blunt or penetrating trauma

ObjectivesMultiple temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques are currently used to manage the open abdomen (OA) in severely injured trauma patients, with variability in efficacy and cost. We evaluated the clinical...

Negative pressure wound therapy for managing the open abdomen in non-trauma patients.

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. 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. 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. 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. Two review authors independently performed the study selection process, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence. 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. 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.

Overview on Temporary Abdominal Closure Techniques: A Review

Open abdomen (OA) is becoming more common, primarily to prevent intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) following emergency abdominal surgery. The purpose of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques is no longer just abdomen coverage; fluid regulation and early fascial closure are now important considerations. TAC techniques for leaving the abdomen open are numerous. The ideal one should be simple to apply and remove, allow for quick access to a surgical second opinion, drain secretions, ease primary closure with acceptable morbidity and mortality, allow for easy nursing, and, finally, be readily available and inexpensive. Over the years, several TAC methods have been proposed. In this review, we overview different techniques for temporary abdominal closure and its advantages and disadvantages.

SP5.2.3 Comparison of Open Abdomen Management Techniques in a cohort of patients with Encapsulating Peritoneal Sclerosis – A large single centre retrospective review

Abstract Aims Encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS) is a rare phenomenon characterised by encasement and obstruction of the bowel by thickened peritoneum. In our centre, EPS laparotomies are typically managed with open abdomen (OA) and planned relook at 24-48 hours. The aim of the study was to compare ABTHERATM open abdomen negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with packing (betadine-soaked gauze) as temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques in OA management. Methods We performed retrospective analysis of a contemporaneously maintained database of all patients who underwent surgery for EPS between 2010-2020. A variety of variables were included with the primary endpoint being time to definitive fascial closure. Patient demographics, surgical complications, subsequent method of closure (including mesh usage) and outcomes were recorded. Results 99/122 patients underwent open abdomen management. 43/99 were managed with NPWT and 56/99 were managed with packing. The NPWT group had significantly higher fascial closure rates without need for subsequent bridged (mesh) closure when compared to the packed abdomen [62.8% vs 12.5%, (p &amp;lt; 0.001, c2 test)]. In the NPWT group, there were also fewer failed closures [4.7% vs 19.6%, (p = 0.03, c2 test)] along with shorter time to definitive closure and reduced theatre episodes. No incidence of intestinal fistulation was associated with NPWT. Conclusion This study provides definitive guidance as to the benefit of ABTHERATM open abdomen NPWT for fascial closure following open abdominal management. ABTHERATM open abdomen NPWT provides significant advantages over traditional methods of TAC and may provide benefit in OA management in other patient groups (sepsis and trauma) as well.

Should Negative Pressure Therapy Replace Any Other Temporary Abdominal Closure Device in Open-Abdomen Management of Secondary Peritonitis?

AIM: To clarify the advantages of negative pressure therapy (NPT) compared to other methods of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) in the management of secondary peritonitis. METHODS: We retraced the history of known methods of TAC, and analyzed their advantages and disadvantages. We evaluated as the NPT mechanisms, both from the macroscopic that bio-molecular point of view, well suits to manage this difficult condition. RESULTS: The ideal TAC technique should be quick to apply, easy to change, protect and contain the abdominal viscera, decrease bowel edema, prevent loss of domain and abdominal compartment syndrome, limit contamination, allow egress of peritoneal fluid (and its estimation) and not result in adhesions. It should also be cost-effective, minimize the number of dressing changes and the number of surgical revisions, and ensure a high rate of early closure with a low rate of complications (especially entero-atmospheric fistula). For NPT, the reported fistula rate is 7%, primary fascial closure ranges from 33 to 100% (average 60%) and the mortality rate is about 20%. With the use of NPT as TAC, it may be possible to extend the window of time to achieve primary fascial closure (for up to 20-40 days). CONCLUSION: NPT has several potential advantages in open-abdomen (OA) management of secondary peritonitis and may make it possible to achieve all the goals suggested above for an ideal TAC system. Only trained staff should use NPT, following the manufacturer’s instructions when commercial products are used. Even if there was a significant evolution in OA management, we believe that further research into the role of NPT for secondary peritonitis is necessary.

Skin-only closure as a temporary abdominal closure technique in a rural setting - exploring role and safety profile

Background Acute laparotomy for trauma or sepsis often prevents definitive closure due to need for relook laparotomy or to prevent abdominal compartment syndrome. Skin-only closure is widely used in our setting. In this study, we review the safety and effectiveness of this technique. Methods Patients presenting with intra-abdominal pathology undergoing acute laparotomy and then subsequent skinonly closure using 2-0 prolene were included in the study and followed postoperatively for a three-month period for adverse events stratified by Clavien-Dindo grading, and rate of definitive closure. Results During the study period, twenty-five patients underwent emergent laparotomy and skin-only closure. The median age of patients undergoing skin-only closure was 27 years (standard deviation 9.1). Six patients presented with major trauma and 19 presented with sepsis. Twenty-one patients underwent subsequent fascial closure. One patient was unable to undergo fascial closure and was managed as a planned ventral hernia. Fourteen patients developed a postoperative complication. There were no deaths and no readmissions to intensive care. Three further patients developed a ventral hernia. Conclusion Skin-only closure, in carefully selected patients, is a feasible alternative to other temporary abdominal closure techniques in a resource-constrained setting.

Open Abdomen and Fluid Instillation in the Septic Abdomen: Results from the IROA Study

BackgroundOpen abdomen (OA) is a surgical option that can be used in patients with severe peritonitis. Few evidences exist to recommend the use of intraperitoneal fluid instillation associated with OA in managing septic abdomen.Materials and methodsA prospective analysis of adult patients enrolled in the International Register of Open Abdomen (trial registration: NCT02382770) was performed.ResultsA total of 387 patients were enrolled in two groups: 84 with peritoneal fluid instillation (FI) and 303 without (NFI). The groups were homogeneous for baseline characteristics. Overall complications were 92.9% in FI and 86.3% in NFI (p = 0.106). Complications during OA were 72.6% in FI and 59.9% in NFI (p = 0.034). Complications after definitive closure were 70.8% in FI and 61.1% in NFI (p = 0.133). Entero-atmospheric fistula was 13.1% in FI and 12% in NFI (p = 0.828). Fascial closure was 78.6% in FI and 63.7% in NFI (p = 0.02). Analysis of FI in negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) showed: Overall morbidity in NPWT was 94% and in non-NPWT 91.2% (p = 0.622) and morbidity during OA was 68% and 79.4% (p = 0.25), respectively. Definitive fascial closure in NPWT was 87.8% and 96.8% in non-NPWT (p = 0.173). Overall mortality was 40% in NPWT and 29.4% in non-NPWT (p = 0.32) and morality during OA period was 18% and 8.8% (p = 0.238), respectively.ConclusionWe found intraperitoneal fluid instillation during open abdomen in peritonitic patients to increase the complication rate during the open abdomen period, with no impact on mortality, entero-atmospheric fistula rate and opening time. Fascial closure rate is increased by instillation. Fluid instillation is feasible even when associated with nonnegative pressure temporary abdominal closure techniques.

Open abdomen closure methods for severe abdominal sepsis: a retrospective cohort study.

The open abdomen (OA) procedure as part of damage control surgery represents a significant surgical advance in severe intra-abdominal infections. Major techniques used for OA are negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and non-NPWT. The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the effects of different abdominal closure methods and their outcomes in patients presenting with abdominal sepsis treated with OA. We retrospectively analyzed clinical outcomes of patients affected by severe intra-abdominal sepsis treated with OA. Demographic features, mortality prediction score, abdominal closure methods, length of hospital stay, complications and mortality rates of patients were determined and compared. This study included 106 patients, of whom 77 underwent OA with NPWT and 29 with non-NPWT. OA duration was longer in NPWT patients (p = 0.007). In-hospital mortality rates in NPWT and in non-NPWT patients were 40.3% and 51.7%, respectively (p = 0.126), with an overall 30-day mortality rate of 18.2% and 51.7%, respectively (p = 0.0002). After emergency colorectal surgery, patients who underwent OA with NPWT had a lower rate of colostomy (p = 0.025). NPWT is the best temporary abdominal closure technique to decrease mortality and colostomy rates in patients managed with OA for severe intra-abdominal infections.

Temporary Abdominal Closure Is Associated with Increased Risk for Fungal Intra-Abdominal Infections in Trauma Patients.

Background: Fungal infections are associated with increased morbidity and death. Few studies have examined risk factors associated with post-operative fungal intra-abdominal infections (FIAIs) in trauma patients after exploratory laparotomy. In this study, we evaluated potential risk factors for acquiring post-operative FIAIs and their impact on clinical outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of trauma patients admitted from 2005 to 2018 who underwent exploratory laparotomy and subsequently had development of intra-abdominal infection (IAI). Demographics, comorbidities, culture data, antimicrobial usage, Injury Severity Scores (ISS), and clinical outcomes were abstracted. All post-operative IAIs were evaluated and stratified as either bacterial, fungal, combined, and with or without colonization. All groups were compared. Risk factors for the development of post-operative IAI and clinical outcomes were analyzed by Student t test and chi-square test. Multi-variable logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of post-operative FIAIs. Results: There were 1675 patients identified as having undergone exploratory laparotomy in the setting of traumatic injury, 161 of whom were suspected of having IAI. A total of 105 (6.2%) patients had a diagnosis of IAI. Of these patients, 40 (38%) received a diagnosis of FIAI. The most common fungal pathogens were unspeciated yeast (48.3%), followed by Candida albicans (42.7%), C. glabrata (4.5%), C. dubliniensis (2.25%), and C. tropicalis (2.25%). There were no significant differences in demographics, comorbidities, and percentage of gastric perforations between FIAI and bacterial IAI (BIAI) groups. Patients with FIAIs, however, had a 75% temporary abdominal closure (TAC) rate compared with 51% in BIAIs (p = 0.01). The FIAI group had higher ISS (27 vs. 22, p = 0.03), longer hospital days (34 vs. 25, p = 0.02), and longer intensive care unit (ICU) days (17 vs. 9, p = 0.006) when compared with BIAI. The FIAI group also had a five-fold greater mortality rate. Logistic regression identified TAC as an independent risk factor for the development of post-operative FIAIs (odds ratio [OR] 6.16, confidence interval [CI] 1.14-28.0, p = 0.02). Conclusions: An FIAI after exploratory laparotomy was associated with greater morbidity and death. A TAC was associated independently with increased risk of FIAI after exploratory laparotomy in the setting of traumatic injury. Clinicians should suspect fungal infections in trauma patients in whom post-operative IAI develops after undergoing exploratory laparotomy using TAC techniques.

Single hem to reduce evisceration following Bogotá bag for damage control surgery: ‘sail technique’

Laparostomy reduces complications of intra-abdominal hypertension and allows for planned relook procedures.[1][1] Temporary abdominal closure techniques have transformed damage control surgery. Mattox described Bogotá bags as an early method of...

Temporary Abdominal Closure Technique After Pediatric Liver Transplant: Single-Center Experience.

Primary abdominal wound closure is performed at the completion of liver transplant in most patients. However, this is not always possible in pediatric recipients. The shortage of size-matched donor organs for pediatric patients means that occasionally it is necessary to use whole livers that are larger than can be accommodated comfortably in the child's abdomen. The present report outlines our experience with temporary patch closure after pediatric liver transplant of the abdominal wall. Our team performed the first liver transplant in Turkey in 1988. Since 1988, we have performed 629 liver transplant (336 adult and 293 pediatric) procedures at our center. We evaluated data of 191 liver transplants performed in recipients who were under 10 years of age. Left lateral lobe grafts were used in 169 patients (88%), and whole grafts were used in 22 patients (12%). Temporary closure with the Bogota bag patch was necessary in 31 transplant procedures (16.2%), 3 of which involved whole livers and 28 of which involved left lateral lobe grafts. The age range of recipients was 5 months to 10 years (median, 30 mo). The temporary abdominal closure technique was preferred in 22 patients because the abdomen could not be closed during surgery. In pediatric patients with difficult abdominal closure after liver transplant, temporary patch closure is the treatment of choice. Our preference has been reinforced silicone sheeting, which allows minimal adhesion formation between the patch and abdominal viscera; in addition, the transparent nature of the material provides a window for inspection of the donor liver.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy with Instillation in the Septic Open Abdomen Utilizing a Modified Negative Pressure Therapy System.

BackgroundVarious treatment modalities are utilized to treat the open abdomen. The use of negative pressure wound therapy(NPWT)has been a great advancement and has become the preferred modality for temporary abdominal closure technique (TAC). Programmed instillation of the abdominal cavity with saline solution in conjunction with a commercial negative pressure system showed positive results in the management of severe abdominal sepsis in patients that were treated with an open abdomen. Severe abdominal sepsis continues to be an oftendifficult clinical problem for the general surgeon. The use of an open abdomen technique in this setting and the ideal TAC method continue to be debated. The failure to understand the biomechanical features/limitations of negative pressure devices are often contributing factors associated with therapeutic failures reported in the literature.ObjectivesTo describe the underlying principles behind negative pressure wound therapy with instillation in the context of abdominal sepsis, as well as its optimal usage in these conditions.MethodsA systematic review and two retrospective cohort studies, both published and unpublished performed by some of the authors were included to provide a basis form comparison between NPWT and NPWT-I outcomes in managing abdominal sepsis.ConclusionOur findings suggest that this technique appears to reduce morbidity, mortality, and hospital and critical care length of stay. This communication is intended to help inform general surgeons that manage complex abdominal infections on how to optimally apply this technique.

\u201cComplex abdominal wall\u201d management: evidence-based guidelines of the Italian Consensus Conference

To date, there is no shared consensus on a definition of a complex abdominal wall in elective surgery and in the emergency, on indications, technical details, complications, and follow-up. The purpose of the conference was to lay the foundations for a homogeneous approach to the complex abdominal wall with the primary intent being to attain the following objectives: (1) to develop evidence-based recommendations to define “complex abdominal wall”; (2) indications in emergency and in elective cases; (3) management of “complex abdominal wall”; (4) techniques for temporary abdominal closure. The decompressive laparostomy should be considered in a case of abdominal compartment syndrome in patients with critical conditions or after the failure of a medical treatment or less invasive methods. In the second one, beyond different mechanism, patients with surgical emergency diseases might reach the same pathophysiological end point of trauma patients where a preventive “open abdomen” might be indicated (a temporary abdominal closure: in the case of a non-infected field, the Wittmann patch and the NPWT had the best outcome followed by meshes; in the case of an infected field, NPWT techniques seem to be the preferred). The second priority is to create optimal both general as local conditions for healing: the right antimicrobial management, feeding—preferably by the enteral route—and managing correctly the open abdomen wall. The use of a mesh appears to be—if and when possible—the gold standard. There is a lot of enthusiasm about biological meshes. But the actual evidence supports their use only in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields but above all, to reduce the higher rate of recurrences, the wall anatomy and function should be restored in the midline, with or without component separation technique. On the other site has not to be neglected that the use of monofilament and macroporous non-absorbable meshes, in extraperitoneal position, in the setting of the complex abdomen with contamination, seems to have a cost effective role too. The idea of this consensus conference was mainly to try to bring order in the so copious, but not always so “evident” literature utilizing and exchanging the expertise of different specialists.