Surgical technology international · 2024
Short-Term Outcomes Following Operative Repair of the Burst Abdomen: A Retrospective Review of Different Techniques.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
van Grinsven Vincent, Bessems Stan A M, Renders Andreas, Konsten Joop, Wegdam Johannes A, Aarts Frits
Аннотация
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.
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.