Vacuum-assisted close versus conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
;
: 260-264, 2014.
Article
in English
| WPRIM
| ID: wpr-17867
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE:
The conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence usually involves surgical revision. Recently, vacuum-assisted closure has been successfully used in postlaparotomy wound dehiscence. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcome of 207 patients undergoing vacuum-assisted closure therapy or conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence.METHODS:
Two hundred and seven consecutive patients underwent treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence vacuum-assisted closure therapy (January 2007 through August 2012, n = 25) or conventional treatment (January 2001 through August 2012, n = 182).RESULTS:
The failure rate to first-line treatment with vacuum-assisted closure and conventional treatment were 0% and 14.3%, respectively (P = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference in the enterocutaneous fistulas and hospital stay after vacuum-assisted closure therapy or conventional treatment respectively.CONCLUSION:
Our findings support that vacuum-assisted closure therapy is a safe and reliable option in postlaparotomy wound dehiscence with very low failure rate in surgical revision compared with conventional treatment.
Full text:
Available
Index:
WPRIM (Western Pacific)
Main subject:
Reoperation
/
Wounds and Injuries
/
Intestinal Fistula
/
Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy
/
Length of Stay
Limits:
Humans
Language:
English
Journal:
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
Year:
2014
Type:
Article
Similar
MEDLINE
...
LILACS
LIS