» Articles » PMID: 20227097

Vacuum-assisted Closure in Severe Abdominal Sepsis with or Without Retention Sutured Sequential Fascial Closure: a Clinical Trial

Overview
Journal Surgery
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2010 Mar 16
PMID 20227097
Citations 31
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Multiple techniques have been introduced to obtain fascial closure for the open abdomen to minimize morbidity and cost of care. We hypothesized that a modification of the vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) technique that provides constant fascial tension and prevents abdominis rectis retraction would facilitate primary fascial closure and reduce morbidity.

Methods: In all, 53 patients with severe abdominal sepsis were allocated randomly into 2 groups, and 30 patients were analyzed. In the VAC group, we included patients managed only with the VAC device, whereas the retentions sutured sequential fascial closure (RSSFC) group included patients to whom RSSFC was performed.

Results: The abdomen was left open for 12 days (P = .0001) with 4.4 ± 1.35 changes per patient for the VAC group (P = .001) and 8 days with 2.87 ± 0.74 dressing changes per patient for the RSSFC group, respectively. Abdominal closure was possible in only 6 patients in the VAC group, whereas for the RSSFC group, abdominal closure was achieved in 14 patients (P = .005). Planned hernia was exclusively decided in patients in the VAC group (P = .001). The hospital stay was 17.53 ± 4.59 days for the VAC group and 11.93 ± 2.05 days for the RSSFC group (P = .0001). The median initial intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) was 12 mm Hg for the VAC group and 16 mm Hg for the RSSFC group (P < .0001).

Conclusion: We demonstrated the superiority of RSSFC compared with the single use of the VAC device. In our opinion, sequential fascial closure can immediately begin when abdominal sepsis is controlled.

Citing Articles

Vacuum-Assisted Closure Significantly Reduces Surgical Postoperative Complications Compared With Primary Abdominal Closure in Patients With Secondary Peritonitis: A Comparative Retrospective Study.

Rajabaleyan P, Vang A, Moller S, Khalaf S, Ladegaard A, Qvist N World J Surg. 2025; 49(2):387-400.

PMID: 39794299 PMC: 11798683. DOI: 10.1002/wjs.12472.


Early placement of a non-invasive, pressure-regulated, fascial reapproximation device improves reduction of the fascial gap in open abdomens: a retrospective cohort study.

Naveed A, Martin N, Bawazeer M, Jastaniah A, Rezende-Neto J Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2024; 9(1):e001529.

PMID: 39411009 PMC: 11474681. DOI: 10.1136/tsaco-2024-001529.


Primary anastomosis and suturing combined with vacuum-assisted abdominal closure in patients with secondary peritonitis due to perforation of the small intestine: a retrospective study.

Rajabaleyan P, Jensen R, Moller S, Qvist N, Ellebaek M BMC Surg. 2023; 23(1):280.

PMID: 37715227 PMC: 10503050. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02179-0.


Retrospective Study of Indications and Outcomes of Open Abdomen with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Technique for Abdominal Sepsis in a Tertiary Referral Centre.

Prete F, De Luca G, Pasculli A, Di Meo G, Poli E, Sgaramella L Antibiotics (Basel). 2022; 11(11).

PMID: 36358153 PMC: 9686976. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11111498.


Vacuum-assisted closure versus on-demand relaparotomy in patients with secondary peritonitis-the VACOR trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Rajabaleyan P, Michelsen J, Tange Holst U, Moller S, Toft P, Luxhoi J World J Emerg Surg. 2022; 17(1):25.

PMID: 35619144 PMC: 9137120. DOI: 10.1186/s13017-022-00427-x.