Vacuum-assisted close versus conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence.

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.