Short-Term Outcomes Following Operative Repair of the Burst Abdomen: A Retrospective Review of Different Techniques.

IF 1.2 Q4 SURGERY Surgical technology international Pub Date : 2024-12-13
Vincent van Grinsven, Stan A M Bessems, Andreas Renders, Joop Konsten, Johannes A Wegdam, Frits Aarts
{"title":"Short-Term Outcomes Following Operative Repair of the Burst Abdomen: A Retrospective Review of Different Techniques.","authors":"Vincent van Grinsven, Stan A M Bessems, Andreas Renders, Joop Konsten, Johannes A Wegdam, Frits Aarts","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Abdominal wall closure in postoperative burst abdomen remains challenging. Different techniques vary between definitive closure and temporary closure. The aim of this study was to examine the short-term outcomes for different closure techniques.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A multicenter single-arm observational retrospective cohort study examined all patients who underwent emergency operative repair for burst abdomen between January 2010 and May 2020 in two hospitals situated in the Netherlands. Patients underwent definitive closure, static closure with inlay mesh, or dynamic closure with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). We evaluated patient and treatment characteristics, length of stay, complications, and survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>119 patients were assessed. Definitive closure was performed in 68 patients (57%), with mesh augmentation in 23 (33%). When temporary closure was performed, 45 patients (88%) underwent mesh bridging. Six patients underwent dynamic closure with NPWT. Mesh bridging resulted in a shorter hospital stay (29 ± 16 days vs. 93 ± 46 days; p<0.001), less severe complications (46% vs. 100%; p=0.001), and less reoperations (20% vs. 100%; p<0.001) when compared to NPWT. There was no significant difference in 30-day and one-year mortality between all patient groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Definitive closure of the burst abdomen should be performed if possible, depending on intraoperative findings. Our data suggest that mesh bridging for burst abdomen is a valuable alternative in terms of hospital stay, severe complications, and reoperations when compared to NPWT. It can be considered in cases where definitive closure is not feasible.</p>","PeriodicalId":22194,"journal":{"name":"Surgical technology international","volume":"45 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical technology international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Abdominal wall closure in postoperative burst abdomen remains challenging. Different techniques vary between definitive closure and temporary closure. The aim of this study was to examine the short-term outcomes for different closure techniques.

Materials and methods: A multicenter single-arm observational retrospective cohort study examined all patients who underwent emergency operative repair for burst abdomen between January 2010 and May 2020 in two hospitals situated in the Netherlands. Patients underwent definitive closure, static closure with inlay mesh, or dynamic closure with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). We evaluated patient and treatment characteristics, length of stay, complications, and survival.

Results: 119 patients were assessed. Definitive closure was performed in 68 patients (57%), with mesh augmentation in 23 (33%). When temporary closure was performed, 45 patients (88%) underwent mesh bridging. Six patients underwent dynamic closure with NPWT. Mesh bridging resulted in a shorter hospital stay (29 ± 16 days vs. 93 ± 46 days; p<0.001), less severe complications (46% vs. 100%; p=0.001), and less reoperations (20% vs. 100%; p<0.001) when compared to NPWT. There was no significant difference in 30-day and one-year mortality between all patient groups.

Conclusion: Definitive closure of the burst abdomen should be performed if possible, depending on intraoperative findings. Our data suggest that mesh bridging for burst abdomen is a valuable alternative in terms of hospital stay, severe complications, and reoperations when compared to NPWT. It can be considered in cases where definitive closure is not feasible.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹部破裂手术修复后的短期疗效:不同技术的回顾性研究。
腹壁闭合在腹壁破裂后腹壁闭合仍然具有挑战性。最终封闭和临时封闭的技术不同。本研究的目的是检查不同缝合技术的短期结果。材料和方法:一项多中心单臂观察性回顾性队列研究调查了2010年1月至2020年5月在荷兰两家医院接受腹部破裂紧急手术修复的所有患者。患者接受最终闭合,用镶嵌网静态闭合或负压伤口治疗(NPWT)动态闭合。我们评估了患者和治疗的特点、住院时间、并发症和生存率。结果:共评估119例患者。68例患者(57%)进行了最终闭合,23例(33%)进行了补片增强。当进行临时闭合时,45名患者(88%)进行了补片桥接。6例患者采用NPWT动态闭合。网状桥接缩短了住院时间(29±16天vs. 93±46天);结论:根据术中发现,如有可能,应对爆裂腹部进行彻底闭合。我们的数据表明,与NPWT相比,在住院时间、严重并发症和再手术方面,网状桥接治疗腹部爆裂是一种有价值的选择。在无法确定关闭的情况下,可以考虑进行关闭。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
141
期刊最新文献
Clinical and Radiological Results of the Integrated Acetabular MUTARS® RS Cup System in the Revision of Geriatric Patients. Do Differences in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Robot-Assisted and Navigated Unicompartmental Knee Replacement Achieve Minimal Clinically Important Differences? One-Year Clinical Outcomes Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Augmented with a Reinforced Bioinductive Implant. Does Robotic-Assisted Functional Knee Positioning Result in Better Functional Outcomes One Year After Surgery. Usefulness of Stress Exercise Echocardiography for Evaluation of Aortic Bioprostheses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1