Wittmann Patch Research Articles

Open abdomen: a comprehensive review

When the abdominal viscera are visible due to a defect in the abdominal wall, which is usually caused intentionally or as a result of abdominal compartment syndrome, it is referred to as an open abdomen. As a protracted open abdomen can result in problems including fluid and protein losses, intestinal fistulization, and loss of abdominal dominance, the main goals of temporal abdominal closure techniques are to prevent fluid losses and loss of dominance. There are several techniques for short-term abdominal closure, each having advantages and disadvantages. These techniques include patch closure, silo closure, and negative pressure systems based on towels and sponges. After temporary abdominal closure, the patient is monitored in the critical care unit while any required adjustments are made to the abdominal dressings. Observational studies have shown that the Wittmann Patch has the highest average rate of primary fascial closure when compared to other operations. Yet, a temporary closure of this sort might not be adequate to stop fluid loss on its own. To monitor fluid loss, a negative pressure device (sponge- or towel-based) is advised. It can be used either on its own or in combination with other techniques for closing the temporal abdominal cavity. When the sign of an open abdomen has been removed, the abdomen is closed, ideally using a major fascial closure. If primary fascial closure cannot be achieved, functional closure may be accomplished using a biological mesh inlay method. While there is a good probability of developing a posterior hernia, this treatment adds new fascial tissue where the natural fascial limits are located. The fascia defect may be filled in with primary skin closure or skin grafts once a layer of granulation tissue has developed over the consolidated visceral mass if the space between the fascia's borders is too large for functional closure. Effective abdominal closure and the prevention of issues ultimately depend on proper management and supervision of temporary abdominal closure.

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.

Wittmann Patch : Superior Closure for the Open Abdomen.

Damage control laparotomy (DCL) is a life-saving surgical technique, but the resultant open abdomen (OA) carries serious morbidity/mortality. Many methods are utilized to manage OAs, but discrepancy exists in distinguishing closure from coverage techniques. We observed a difference in our DCL patient outcomes managed with the Wittmann Patch (WP) closure device versus the more popular ABThera (AB) coverage device. We hypothesized that the WP contributed to an improved fascial closure rate of the OAs after DCL. A retrospective review of OAs managed with the AB or WP at our Level 1 trauma center was performed using billing codes to capture DCL patients from 2011 to 2019. Patients were divided into AB alone or WP groups. Major endpoints included primary fascial closure (PFC) and delayed fascial closure (DFC, fascial closure after greater than 7 days). 189 patients were identified as AB and 38 as WP. Rates of death before closure, age, gender, and Injury Severity Score were similar in both groups. PFC = 81%-90% for AB versus WP, respectively. Excluding patients with preexisting hernias PFC = 87%-100% for AB versus WP (P < .05) and DFC = 44%-100% for AB versus WP (P ≤ 0.001). WP had a statistically higher rate of PFC and DFC. There was a decreased incidence of complications in the WP versus AB group. While not well reported in the peer-reviewed literature, the application of the WP for management of the OA is an active form of pursuing PFC when compared with the AB, a coverage device. Our interinstitutional results have demonstrated superior PFC and DFC rates and fewer complications, in patients managed with the WP compared with the AB.

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

The open abdomen (OA) is an important approach for managing intra-abdominal catastrophes and continues to be the standard of care. Despite this, challenges remain as it is associated with a high incidence of complications and poor outcomes. The objective is to perform a systematic review on dynamic closure techniques for fascial closure during open abdomen management. An electronic database search was conducted involving 4 different databases (MEDLINE (PubMed), SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE (WOS) and EMBASE). All studies that described dynamic closure techniques in OA patients were eligible for inclusion. Data collected were synthesized by each outcome of interest. Thirteen studies were included in the final synthesis. Overall methodological quality was low with a high number of retrospective observational studies and low number of patients. All included studies are observational cohort studies. No studies reported on the use of either Wittmann patch, dynamic retention sutures or ABRA system. Two studies reported on the ABRA system in combination with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT), while 9 reported on mesh-mediated fascial traction (MMFT) combined with NPWT. Other types of fascial traction, either by dynamic suture lines or by a self-made silastic tube system, and NPWT were reported in 2 studies. Overall closure rates are 93.2% for the ABRA system + NPWT versus 72.0% for the mesh-mediated fascial traction + NPWT. Careful selection and good management of OA patients will avoid prolonged treatment and facilitate early fascial closure. Future research should focus oncomparison of different temporary dynamic closure techniques to evolve toward best treatment options, in terms of both fascial closure rates and long-term incisional hernia rates.

\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.

Systematic review and evidence based recommendations for the use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the open abdomen

Introduction: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) is widely used in the management of the open abdomen despite uncertainty regarding several aspects of usage. An expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations describing the use of NPWT in the open abdomen. Methods: A systematic review was carried out to investigate the efficacy of a range of Temporary Abdominal Closure methods including variants of NPWT. Evidence-based recommendations were developed by an International Expert Panel and graded according to the quality of supporting evidence. Results: Pooled results, in non-septic patients showed a 72% fascial closure rate following use of commercial NPWT kits in the open abdomen. This increased to 82% by the addition of a ‘dynamic’ closure method. Slightly lower rates were showed with use of Wittmann Patch (68%) and home-made NPWT (vac-pack) (58%). Patients with septic complications achieved a lower rate of fascial closure than non-septic patients but NPWT with dynamic closure remained the best option to achieve fascial closure. Mortality rates were consistent and seemed to be related to the underlying medical condition rather than being influenced by the choice of dressing, Treatment goals for open abdomen were defined prior to developing eleven specific evidence-based recommendations suitable for different stages and grades of open abdomen. Discussion and conclusion: The most efficient temporary abdominal closure techniques are NPWT kits with or without a dynamic closure procedure. Evidence-based recommendations will help to tailor its use in a complex treatment pathway for the individual patient.

Commentary on “Predictors of Failed Primary Abdominal Closure in the Trauma Patient with an Open Abdomen”

Abstract : Damage-control laparotomy is the mainstay of therapy for the management of abdominal trauma in physiologically ill patients. The goals of damage-control laparotomy include hemostasis and control of contamination, with some form of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) needed upon completion of the abbreviated laparotomy. Ideally, TAC should be atraumatic, be rapidly and easily applied, minimize the risk of intraabdominal hypertension, control peritoneal effluent, allow for quick reentry into the peritoneum, and maximize future attempts to achieve primary fascial closure. The result of the prolonged open abdomen leads to the loss of abdominal wall domain and the need for skin autografting over viscera with planned ventral hernia. As the open abdomen after injury became more common, many TAC methods were developed to include towel-clip skin closure, suture skin closure, Bogota bag, synthetic mesh, mesh zipper, Wittmann patch, three-layer negative-pressure dressing, fascial sutures, and commercial negative-pressure dressings. The methods that are most commonly used can be classified into two main groups: negative-pressure dressings of varying complexity and cost and techniques that apply traction to the fascia and/or skin to limit retraction and theoretically prevent further domain loss. To date, no method has been borne out to be superior to the other. A review suggested that although the generic three-layer vacuum pack technique (nonadhesive bowel drape, towel, closed suction drains) for TAC is the standard, other methods should be measured against it and the choice of TAC should be a matter of surgeon preference.

Options for Closure of the Infected Abdomen

The infected abdomen poses substantial challenges to surgeons, and often, both temporary and definitive closure techniques are required. We reviewed the options available to close the abdominal wall defect encountered frequently during and after the management of complicated intra-abdominal infections. A comprehensive review was performed of the techniques and literature on abdominal closure in the setting of intra-abdominal infection. Temporary abdominal closure options include the Wittmann Patch, Bogota bag, vacuum-assisted closure (VAC), the AbThera™ device, and synthetic or biologic mesh. Definitive reconstruction has been described with mesh, components separation, and autologous tissue transfer. Reconstructing the infected abdomen, both temporarily and definitively, can be accomplished with various techniques, each of which is associated with unique advantages and disadvantages. Appropriate judgment is required to optimize surgical outcomes in these complex cases.

The open abdomen and temporary abdominal closure systems – historical evolution and systematic review

Several techniques for temporary abdominal closure have been developed. We systematically review the literature on temporary abdominal closure to ascertain whether the method can be tailored to the indication. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and relevant meeting abstracts until December 2009 were searched using the following headings: open abdomen, laparostomy, VAC (vacuum assisted closure), TNP (topical negative pressure), fascial closure, temporary abdominal closure, fascial dehiscence and deep wound dehiscence. The data were analysed by closure technique and aetiology. The primary end-points included delayed fascial closure and in-hospital mortality. The secondary end-points were intra-abdominal complications. The search identified 106 papers for inclusion. The techniques described were VAC (38 series), mesh/sheet (30 series), packing (15 series), Wittmann patch (eight series), Bogotá bag (six series), dynamic retention sutures (three series), zipper (15 series), skin only and locking device (one series each). The highest facial closure rates were seen with the Wittmann patch (78%), dynamic retention sutures (71%) and VAC (61%). Temporary abdominal closure has evolved from simple packing to VAC based systems. In the absence of sepsis Wittmann patch and VAC offered the best outcome. In its presence VAC had the highest delayed primary closure and the lowest mortality rates. However, due to data heterogeneity only limited conclusions can be drawn from this analysis.

Temporärer Bauchdeckenverschluss und pathophysiologische Früh- und Spätfolgen der Behandlung eines offenen Abdomens

The open abdomen (OA) is a severe disease pattern accompanied by high morbidity and mortality. It is either result of a surgical dis-ease or approach. The aim of this review article is to provide a systematic overview on the options of a temporary closure of the abdominal wall including early and late consequences in the treatment of an open abdomen based on the current medical literature. Topic-related, selective, PubMed-based literature search of the last decade including historically relevant references combined with own clinical experiences. The initial course is marked by problems in intensive care. The most frequent causes of -death are ventilatory problems, acute renal fail-ure, persisting infections and sepsis as well as multiorgan failure. Intensive care duration ranges from 13 to 65 days. Perioperative mortality is account-ed for 10-52 %. Specific complications can be seen in surviving patients such as enteroatmospheric fistula (1.3-41 %), ventral hernia (32-100 %), intraabdominal abscess formation (2.1-21 %), intestinal adhesions and digestion disturbances, neurological und psychological problems (approximately 20 %) as well as heterotopic ossification (17-25 %). Application of a temporary abdominal closure aims to avoid those complications. Furthermore, time and effort for care and treatment are recommended to be reduced as patients comfort should be improved, simultaneously. Primary fascial closure is of utmost importance to reach this goal. Procedures with highest fascial closure rate (Wittmann patch, STAR, 75-93 %; dynamic retention sutures, 61-91 %; V.A.C., 69-84 %) have lowest mortality. Type and severity of the various early and late consequences in the treatment of an open abdomen are substantially determined by the complication-inducing causes and the basic disease as well as by the options of an efficient, even in some cases temporary closure of the abdominal wall.

Direct Peritoneal Resuscitation Accelerates Primary Abdominal Wall Closure after Damage Control Surgery

Damage control surgery is a staged approach to the trauma patient in extremis that improves survival, but leads to open abdominal wounds that are difficult to manage. We evaluated whether directed peritoneal resuscitation (DPR) when used as a resuscitation strategy in severely injured trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock requiring damage control surgery would affect the amount of and timing of resuscitation and/or show benefits in time to abdominal closure and reduction of intra-abdominal complications. A retrospective case-matched study of patients undergoing damage control surgery for hemorrhagic shock secondary to trauma between January 2005 and December 2008 was performed. Twenty patients undergoing standardized wound closure and adjunctive DPR were identified and matched to 40 controls by Injury Severity Score, age, gender, and mechanism of injury. A single early death was excluded because of inability to control ongoing hemorrhage. There were no differences in age, gender, or mechanism of injury between the groups. Injury Severity Score (35.07 +/- 17.1 versus DPR 34.95 +/- 16.95; p = 0.82) and packed red blood cell administration in 24 hours (23.8 +/- 14.35 U versus DPR 26.9 +/- 14.1 U; p = 0.43) were similar between the groups. Presenting pH was similar between the study group and the DPR group (7.24 +/- 0.13 d versus DPR 7.26 +/- 0.11; p = 0.8). Time to definitive abdominal closure was significantly less in the DPR group compared with controls (DPR: 4.35 +/- 1.6 d versus 7.05 +/- 3.31; p < 0.003). DPR also allowed for a higher rate of primary fascial closure, lower intra-abdominal complication rate, and lower rate of ventral hernia formation at 6 months. Adjunctive DPR afforded a definitive wound closure advantage compared with Wittmann patch closure techniques (DPR 4.35 +/- 1.6 versus Wittmann patch 6.375 +/- 1.3; p = 0.004). The addition of adjunctive DPR to the damage control strategy shortens the interval to definitive fascial closure without affecting overall resuscitation volumes. As a result, this mitigates intra-abdominal complications associated with open abdomen and damage control surgery and affords better patient outcomes.

The Use of the Wittmann Patch Facilitates a High Rate of Fascial Closure in Severely Injured Trauma Patients and Critically Ill Emergency Surgery Patients

The open abdomen after severe intra-abdominal trauma and emergency surgery is a major operative challenge. It is associated with high morbidity and prolonged hospital stays. Several management strategies have been developed to assist with fascial closure but no single method has emerged as the best. The Wittmann Patch (Starsurgical, Burlington, WI) is a unique device which uses velcro to permit progressive abdominal closure without necessitating serial operations. The purpose of this study was to determine the fascial closure rate using the Wittmann patch. We hypothesized that use of the patch would result in a high closure rate. Hospital billing codes were reviewed to identify those patients who underwent Wittmann patch placement. During the period from June 2002 to May of 2006, 29 patients were identified. These included 19 trauma patients and 10 other surgical patients. Other patients included vascular, bariatric, and emergency general surgery patients. The trauma registry and the patients' medical records were reviewed to determine injury severity, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, fluid requirements, patch placement, management, and patient outcomes. Twenty-two (76%) of the 29 patients survived to discharge. The average Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 25 +/- 6 in all patients, 22.9 +/- 6 in survivors, and 31 +/- 3 in those who died (p = 0.004). Mean injury severity scale and abdominal abbreviated injury scale scores in trauma patients were 28 +/- 10 and 3 +/- 2, respectively. The mean volume of fluid given during the 24 hours before having an open abdomen or patch placement was 17.6 L +/- 10.1 L. Twenty-five (86.2%) of 29 patients had at least one abdominal operation before placement of the patch (mean 1.3 +/- 1.0). Eighteen (82%) of 22 patients who survived to discharge had successful facial closure. Three patients (14%) required mesh placement for abdominal closure. The remaining patient had his patch removed and ultimately underwent skin grafting and subsequent component separation closure. Successful fascial closure was achieved after 15.5 days +/- 10.2 days (range, 5-42 days). The skin was left open in half of the patients. There were four abdominal complications that were noted while the patch was in place. Three of four complications were related to the primary disease, and in the fourth complication the patch became infected and had to be removed. There were no eviscerations or enterocutaneous fistulas after primary fascial closure. The median length of stay was 28 days (Interquartile range, 14-39 days). Use of the Wittmann Patch can achieve a high rate of delayed fascial closure in severe trauma and critically ill emergency surgery patients with open abdomens. Most of the complications associated with use of the patch were wound infections after fascial closure and closure of the skin.

Closing the Open Abdomen: Improved Success With Wittmann Patch Staged Abdominal Closure

Although the "open abdomen" has likely contributed to improved outcomes in trauma patients, the challenge of subsequent fascial closure has emerged. Since mid 2004, we have incorporated Wittmann Patch staged abdominal closure into our management of the open abdomen. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of this device on our incidence of fascial closure versus planned ventral hernia. Patients managed by open abdomen from 2001 through 2006 were identified from the trauma registry. Fascial closure immediately after definitive repair of injuries was defined as "early fascial closure." Continuation of the open abdomen beyond the definitive repair of injuries with subsequent fascial closure was defined as "delayed fascial closure." Since April 2004, the Wittmann Patch was uniformly employed in open abdomen management. Patients managed before the use of this device ("pre-Patch") were compared with those managed in the "Patch" era. Fifty-six open abdomens were managed in the pre-Patch era and 103 were managed in the Patch era. In the pre-Patch era, 33 (59%) underwent early fascial closure, compared with 67 (65%) in the Patch era (p NS). For the remaining patients, the incidence of delayed fascial closure was significantly higher in those managed with the Wittmann Patch compared with those managed in the pre-Patch era (78% vs. 30%, p < 0.001). Planned ventral hernia was performed in 8 (8%) patients in the Patch era versus 16 (29%) patients in the pre-Patch era (p < 0.001). Abdominal complications were similar between groups (11% vs. 9%, p NS). Incorporating the Wittmann Patch into a clinical pathway for management of the open abdomen has contributed to an increased incidence of delayed fascial closure. Abdominal complications were similar in both groups, suggesting that the device is not only efficacious, but also relatively safe.

Delayed Primary Closure in Damage Control Laparotomy: The Value of the Wittmann Patch

Damage control laparotomy has become an accepted practice in trauma surgery. A number of methods leading to delayed primary closure of the abdomen have been advocated; complications are recognized with all these methods. The approach to staged repair using the Wittmann patch (Star Surgical Inc., Burlington, WI) combines the advantages of planned relaparotomy and open management, while minimizing the rate of complications. The authors hypothesized that use of the Wittmann patch would lead to a high rate of delayed primary closure of the abdomen. The patch consists of two sheets sutured to the abdominal fascia, providing for temporary closure. Advancement of the patch and abdominal exploration can be done at bedside. When the fascial edges can be reapproximated without tension, abdominal closure is performed. Twenty-six patients underwent staged abdominal closure during the study period. All were initially managed with intravenous bag closure. Eighty-three per cent (20 of 24) went on to delayed primary closure of the abdomen, with a mean time of 13.1 days from patch placement to delayed primary closure. The rate of closure using the Wittmann patch is equivalent to other commonly used methods and should be considered when managing patients with abdominal compartment syndrome or severe abdominal trauma.

Use of controlled fascial tension and an adhesion preventing barrier to achieve delayed primary fascial closure in patients managed with an open abdomen

Open management of the abdomen has become an accepted technique for both the treatment and the prevention of abdominal compartment syndrome. It has also gained popularity as a treatment option in situations requiring multiple laparotomies such as uncontrolled intra-abdominal infections and severe abdominal injury necessitating damage control surgery. A significant number of patients managed with the open abdomen technique are unable to undergo complete abdominal wall closure and consequently develop large, complex anterior abdominal wall hernias. We report the use of a controlled fascial tensioning device, the Wittmann Patch (Starsurgical, Inc, Burlington, WI), in combination with an adhesion preventing barrier to allow for unhindered sequential medial advancement of the fascia toward the midline. The use of these 2 devices together may lead to a higher incidence of fascia-to-fascia abdominal wall closure than the use of fascial tension alone.

A Proposed Algorithm for Managing the Open Abdomen

Delayed abdominal closure has gained acceptance in managing a variety of surgical conditions. Multiple techniques were devised to promote safe, uncomplicated, expeditious fascial closure. We retrospectively reviewed patient records between September 22, 2001 and June 30, 2004. Of the 20 patients with open abdomen, two patients died within 24 hours and one was transferred. The remaining 17 were managed using an algorithm including a combination of delayed primary closure (DPC), vacuum-assisted fascial closure (VAFC), Wittmann Patch (WP) (Star Surgical, Inc., Burlington, WI), and planned ventral hernia via absorbable mesh with split thickness skin grafting (PVH). The mean Simplified Acute Physiology Scores (SAPS II) was 31 (predicted mortality 73%). All patients initially underwent VAFC and re-exploration 12-48 hours later. Indications for continued VAFC included 1) gross contamination, 2) massive bowel edema, 3) continued bleeding at re-exploration. If these conditions were absent, DPC was attempted or a WP was employed until fascial closure. Twenty-eight day mortality was 5.9 per cent (1/17 patients). Enterocutaneous fistulae occurred in two patients (11.7%). Fascial closure was achieved in 6 patients (35.3%). Eleven patients were managed with PVH. Using an algorithm with a combination of several techniques, open abdomen can be managed with minimal morbidity and acceptable closure rates.