Interrupted versus continuous fascial closure in patients undergoing emergent laparotomy: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal method of fascial closure, interrupted fascial closure (IFC) versus continuous fascial closure (CFC) has never been studied exclusively in the setting of emergency surgery. We hypothesized that IFC decreases postoperative incisional hernia development following emergent laparotomies. METHODS: Between August 2008 and September 2015, patients undergoing emergent laparotomies were consented and randomly assigned to either IFC or CFC. Patients were followed up postoperatively for at least 3 months and assessed for incisional hernia, dehiscence, or wound infection. We excluded those with trauma, elective surgery, mesh in place, primary ventral hernia, previous abdominal surgery within 30 days, or those not expected to survive for more than 48 hours. Our primary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative incisional hernias. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to IFC (n = 67) or CFC (n = 69). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. No difference was noted in the length of the abdominal incision, or the peak inspiratory pressure after the closure. The median time needed for closure was significantly longer in the IFC group (22 minutes vs. 13 minutes, p < 0.001). Thirty-seven (55.2%) IFC and 41 (59.4%) CFC patients completed their follow-up visits. There was no statistically significant difference in baseline and intraoperative characteristics between those who completed follow-ups and those who did not. The median time from the day of surgery to the day of the last follow-up was similar between IFC and CFC (233 days vs. 216 days, p = 0.67), as were the rates of incisional hernia (13.5% versus 22.0%, p = 0.25), dehiscence (2.7% vs. 2.4%, p = 1.0), and surgical site infection (16.2% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.75). CONCLUSION: There was no statistically detectable difference in postoperative hernia development between those undergoing IFC versus CFC after emergent laparotomies. However, this may be due to the relatively low sample size. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management Study, level III.

The role of open abdomen in non-trauma patient: WSES Consensus Paper.

The open abdomen (OA) is defined as intentional decision to leave the fascial edges of the abdomen un-approximated after laparotomy (laparostomy). The abdominal contents are potentially exposed and therefore must be protected with a temporary coverage, which is referred to as temporal abdominal closure (TAC). OA use remains widely debated with many specific details deserving detailed assessment and clarification. To date, in patients with intra-abdominal emergencies, the OA has not been formally endorsed for routine utilization; although, utilization is seemingly increasing. Therefore, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Abdominal Compartment Society (WSACS) and the Donegal Research Academy united a worldwide group of experts in an international consensus conference to review and thereafter propose the basis for evidence-directed utilization of OA management in non-trauma emergency surgery and critically ill patients. In addition to utilization recommendations, questions with insufficient evidence urgently requiring future study were identified.

IROA: International Register of Open Abdomen, preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: No definitive data about open abdomen (OA) epidemiology and outcomes exist. The World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the Panamerican Trauma Society (PTS) promoted the International Register of Open Abdomen (IROA). METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study including patients with an OA treatment. Data were recorded on a web platform (Clinical Registers®) through a dedicated website: www.clinicalregisters.org. RESULTS: Four hundred two patients enrolled. Adult patients: 369 patients; Mean age: 57.39±18.37; 56% male; Mean BMI: 36±5.6. OA indication: Peritonitis (48.7%), Trauma (20.5%), Vascular Emergencies/Hemorrhage (9.4%), Ischemia (9.1%), Pancreatitis (4.2%),Post-operative abdominal-compartment-syndrome (3.9%), Others (4.2%). The most adopted Temporary-abdominal-closure systems were the commercial negative pressure ones (44.2%). During OA 38% of patients had complications; among them 10.5% had fistula. Definitive closure: 82.8%; Mortality during treatment: 17.2%. Mean duration of OA: 5.39(±4.83) days; Mean number of dressing changes: 0.88(±0.88). After-closure complications: (49.5%) and Mortality: (9%). No significant associations among TACT, indications, mortality, complications and fistula. A linear correlationexists between days of OA and complications (Pearson linear correlation = 0.326 p<0.0001) and with the fistula development (Pearson = 0.146 p= 0.016). Pediatric patients: 33 patients. Mean age: 5.91±(3.68) years; 60% male. Mortality: 3.4%; Complications: 44.8%; Fistula: 3.4%. Mean duration of OA: 3.22(±3.09) days. CONCLUSION: Temporary abdominal closure is reliable and safe. The different techniques account for different results according to the different indications. In peritonitis commercial negative pressure temporary closure seems to improve results. In trauma skin-closure and Bogotà-bag seem to improve results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02382770.

Abdominal closure protocol in colorectal, gynecologic oncology, and urology procedures: a randomized quality improvement trial.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs) can improve surgical quality through reductions in morbidity and cost. We sought to determine whether the abdominal closure protocol, in isolation, decreases SSI at an academic teaching hospital. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing laparotomy were prospectively randomized to an abdominal closure protocol, which includes unused sterile instruments and equipment at fascial closure, or usual care. A 30-day SSI rates were compared. General surgery, colorectal, urology, or gynecologic oncology patients undergoing anticipated wound classification II cases were eligible. RESULTS: Overall SSI rates were 11.6% in patients randomized to protocol closure vs 12.4% for usual care (total n = 233; P = .85). The abdominal closure protocol and usual care groups had similar rates of superficial (4.5% vs 4.1%; P = .9), deep (.9% vs 0%, P = .3), organ-space SSI rates (6.2% vs 8.3%, P = .55), and wound dehiscence (2.7% vs 5.3%; P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: An abdominal closure protocol did not decrease the rate of SSI and is likely not a key intervention for SSI reduction.

Past and current surgical treatment of giant omphalocele: outcome of a questionnaire sent to authors.

PURPOSE: Operative treatment of giant omphalocele (OC) is still a challenge for pediatric surgeons. We were interested to ascertain whether published operative techniques for giant OC once advocated by their authors were still being used by these authors and whether the techniques had been modified or even abandoned for other techniques. METHODS: Relevant studies concerning the treatment of giant OC were identified by an electronic search. Publication date of the articles was from 1967 to 2009. A questionnaire was sent to the first author or coauthor, unless contact details were unavailable. The described surgical techniques were categorized into primary closure, staged closure, and delayed closure. RESULTS: Almost half of the authors (42%), independent of the initial technique used (primary, staged, or delayed closure), changed or stopped using their technique after the publication of the article. The change was not to one particular proven better technique. Herniation rate was lower in delayed closure (9% delayed vs 18% staged vs 58% primary). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the questionnaire did not show a generally accepted method of treatment after more than 30 years of innovations in managing patients with a giant OC. There are generally 2 main treatment modalities: staged closure and delayed closure. Because of the lack of large patient numbers and late follow-up, long-term results of the published techniques are needed, and randomized multicenter trials based on these outcomes are recommended. Until then, we remain dependent on expert opinions.