Article

Topical negative pressure in managing severe peritonitis: a positive contribution?

Department of Surgery, Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline, Fife, Scotland KY12 0SU, United Kingdom.
World Journal of Gastroenterology (impact factor: 2.47). 08/2009; 15(27):3394-7. pp.3394-7
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the use of topical negative pressure (TNP) in the management of severe peritonitis.
This is a four-year prospective analysis from January 2005 to December 2008 of 20 patients requiring TNP following laparotomy for severe peritonitis.
There were 11 males with an average age of (59.3 +/- 3.95) years. Nine had a perforated viscus, five had anastomotic leaks, three had iatrogenic bowel injury, and a further three had severe pelvic inflammatory disease. TNP and the VAC(R) Abdominal Dressing System were initially used. These were changed every two to three days. Abdominal closure was achieved in 15/20 patients within 4.53 +/- 1.64 d. One patient required relaparotomy due to residual sepsis. Two patients with severe faecal peritonitis due to perforated diverticular disease received primary anastomosis at second look laparotomy, as sepsis and their general condition improved. In the remaining 5/20 cases, the abdomen was left open due to bowel oedema and or abdominal wall oedema. Dressing was switched to TNP and VAC GranuFoam. Three of the five patients returned a few months later for abdominal wall reconstruction and restoration of intestinal continuity. Two patients developed intestinal fistulae. All 20 patients survived.
The use of TNP is safe. Further studies are needed to assess its value in managing these difficult cases.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
31 Views
  • Source
    Article: Experience with vacuum-pack temporary abdominal wound closure in 258 trauma and general and vascular surgical patients.
    Donald E Barker, John M Green, Robert A Maxwell, Philip W Smith, Vicente A Mejia, Benjamin W Dart, Joseph B Cofer, S Michael Roe, R Phillip Burns
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Temporary closure of an open abdominal wound by vacuum-pack is the method of choice for patients requiring open abdomen management in our institution. We have previously reported our experience with a vacuum-pack in trauma patients and have expanded its use to general and vascular surgery patients. This is a descriptive study performed through review of medical records of all patients undergoing vacuum-pack closure after celiotomy from January 1999 to May 2006. Clinical and demographic data were collected. Seven hundred seventeen vacuum-pack closures were performed in 258 surgical patients (116 trauma versus 142 general and vascular surgery). The most common indication for open abdomen management was damage control in trauma patients and planned reexploration in general and vascular surgery patients. Total abdominal complication rate was 15.5% (14.7% trauma versus 16.2% general and vascular surgery). Fistulas occurred in 13 (5%), intraabdominal abscesses in 9 (3.5%), bowel obstruction in 3 (1.2%), abdominal compartment syndrome in 3 (1.2%), and evisceration in 1 (0.4%). Two hundred twenty-six patients survived to permanent abdominal wound closure. Of these, 154 (68.1%) patients underwent primary fascial closure of their abdominal wounds. Seventy-two patients (31.9%) required delayed closure. In-hospital mortality rate was 26.0% (25.9% trauma versus 26.1% general and vascular surgery). The cost of vacuum-pack materials is less than $50. Indication for open abdomen management varied between general and vascular surgery and trauma patients. Complication rates were similar. Primary closure of open abdominal wounds was achieved in 68.4% of patients. Vacuum-pack temporary abdominal wound closure, initially used in trauma patients, continues to demonstrate ease of mastery, effectiveness in patient care and comfort, consistently low associated complication rate, and low cost in both general and vascular surgery and trauma patients.
    Journal of the American College of Surgeons 06/2007; 204(5):784-92; discussion 792-3. · 4.55 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.

Keywords

20 patients
 
Abdominal closure
 
abdominal wall oedema
 
abdominal wall reconstruction
 
average age
 
five patients
 
four-year prospective analysis
 
general condition
 
intestinal continuity
 
intestinal fistulae
 
laparotomy
 
open
 
patients
 
perforated diverticular disease
 
perforated viscus
 
relaparotomy
 
remaining 5/20 cases
 
severe faecal peritonitis
 
severe peritonitis
 
topical negative pressure